Republican men seem massively troubled about their masculinity — and that’s literally causing death and suffering
Men who work to limit women’s autonomy over their own bodies, or for that matter conservative women who punch down to bolster their fragile status have serious issues to work on and should quit afflicting them on the rest of us.
Amen
One thing I’ve learned is that if you have to announce something about yourself, and announce it loudly and repeatedly, it’s very much not true.
I’ve been told drinking coffee with cream or sugar isn’t manly which I find funny, like who cares? We all have taste buds dude. IMO a “real” man isn’t concerned about what others think, he is comfortable being himself.
Know what’s manly? Doing whatever the fuck you want.
I’d like to amend that with “whatever the fuck you want, so long as you’re not hurting anyone,” because plenty of these dudes live by doing whatever they want, but they don’t give two shits about how it affects everyone else.
Oh of course.
Pretty much I think the only person who’s opinion you should care about is your significant other you’re going for. Literally who cares about anyone else’s opinions lol, they aren’t a part of your life.
I think what you’re saying is more about being HUmanly. Once you try to assert what manliness is and isnt it becomes clear that gender is a social construct and that people should just do what they feel is right regardless of what abstract groups they identify with
I drink black coffee because I have a problem. Not because I’m trying to get +1 to my role in society
Imagine being so sensitive a little bit of lightness in your coffee is enough of a devaluation to your manhood to make it a thing 😫
God this is like the whole “cocktails are girly, real men drink beers”. I don’t care, give me a Sex on the Beach or a rum and coke. Or a good beer. Life is way too short to drink something called bitter.
“It’s literally called bitter!”
Okay, but Campari Soda is so good in summer
I fill a glass of International Delight Caramel Macchiato and add dark roast coffee as needed to thin it out. 1 to 1 1/2 ounces of coffee is the sweet spot.
I’m not saying it’s unmanly or anything, but sweet jebus that’s a lot of sugar. It’s like 5grams per tablespoon. That’s like a third.
Nothing manlier then diabetes.
Not for manlyness reasons, but I would recommend not using creamer. The sugar content is so freaking high. Just add cream (milk or milk alternative) and sugar to taste. It’ll be healthier. Ideally though, if you don’t like coffee, find another way to get your caffeine fix. Get some caffeine pills or some powder that you can add to juice in the morning, which would be healthier to consume (though also high in sugar, and be careful what kind of juice, some are largely HFCS).
A guy who used to cut my hair was rumored to be a hitman for the mafia. Nice guy. Really mild mannered. Last person who you would ever suspect of killing people.
I actually believe the rumor because an actual hitman will make sure that he’s the last person that you would ever suspect.
I’m not sure about that. You may just be in an oppressive environment, like with trans people and their pronouns.
Hypermasculinity’s “oppressors” include flowers, rainbows, other people choosing to wear dresses, a functioning government, and welfare.
Trans folks oppressors are the hypermasculine.
I’m not saying any specific group of people are always oppressed, just that if they are your previous statement is incorrect.
I understand your point. It’s just good to highlight the things that make these groups oppressed. For the hypermasculine it’s anything that hurts their little feelings, and for trans people it is actual real persecution. And only one of these groups goes around screaming about the victim complex these days 🙄
Why should diminishing others feelings be the go to resource? Are you now justifying their behaviours?
If you’re pointing out imperfections in the argument, then you’re automatically a radical example of the other side. /S
And the projections. The constant insults are ones they practice in the mirror because that’s the person it applies to the most
(Alpha Male)
Since Alpha and Omega = Beginning and End, I always think an alpha male is a beginner at the art of being a male human and we should help them to become better at it.
Full release men with ongoing development are the best.
I do think self proclaimed “alpha males” need to be bullied about being still in development like some toddler. Or early Access game.
deleted by creator
I said it before too but:
Gotta take the statement in context of the thread. I am sure there are a lot of people in environments that they have to continuously assert themselves just to be heard let alone recognized. The cis white men who typically embody this toxic masculinity are not in an oppressive environment, they are creating the oppressive environment.
The scientists who had to denounce climate change back in the days very much disagree with you.
No, not at all. You missed part of their statement. Something about yourself. Pretty sure climate change wasn’t about those scientists personally.
Say that to the climate scientist who got fired and her home raided by DeSantis
Seems to be a big deal when you start talking guns and mental health, but with all the fixations on “mass shootings”, they lose this little stat:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
“In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. That figure includes gun murders and gun suicides, along with three less common types of gun-related deaths tracked by the CDC: those that were accidental, those that involved law enforcement and those whose circumstances could not be determined.”
54% of those deaths were suicides. 26,368.
(43% murder, 3% “other”, accidents, etc.)
Also in 2021, 38,358 men committed suicide compared to 9,825 women.
https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/suicide-data-statistics.html
3.9:1, if almost 4x more women than men were dying for any reason, it would be a national crisis. “Something would have to be done!”
Mental health for men? Silence.
I hear what you are saying but I wouldn’t even say that line about if it were women it’d be a national crisis. Time has shown again and again that society will gladly throw away a group of people without needing to devalue your words with a statement like that.
Anyway there’s a lot of things to discuss around this.
We can dive into the societal role of men with being encouraged to bottle up because “grown men don’t cry” and toxic masculinity.
We can talk about rates of gun ownership between genders that is a big factor in suicide risk.
We can unpack the issue with people not having the money for mental health resources. Which can be solved through general wage increases or through the state.
The point is to say that instead of using a crisis to step another group of people we should be approaching these things from a point of intersectionality.
Edit: Just to be on topic I am completely for restrictions on guns as a easier means to dealing with shootings.
The crazy people shouting “dont take my guns” while also touting the line of “it’s a mental health isssue” without being open to addressing that problem gets me so worked up.
54% of those deaths were suicides. 26,368.
Mental health for men? Silence.
There are people who advocate for “men’s rights” things, but they’re mostly conservatives, and they leave out the horrifying statistics about gun ownership among men because they’re also in the pocket of the gun lobby.
It’s a taboo subject even amongst family members of those affected to talk about the role of firearms in suicide.
The reality is that gun ownership can turn a bad, lonely night into a person’s last one by pure virtue of the fact that it’s so readily available, and so often deadly.
If your bad, lonely night is that bad and lonely, you probably were unstable to begin with.
I wonder how many of those gun suicides were actually impulsive, and how many were premeditated.
You don’t have to wonder, this has been studied: Gun owners and their families are up to 8 times much more likely to kill themselves than are non-gun-owners.
That doesn’t include attempts though. I think we agree that guns are most effective, but I’d like to see if gun owners are more predisposed to attempt than non gunners
People aren’t silent about men successfully committing suicide at a higher rate to women. You hear about it all the time. However, it isn’t an issue about men being overlooked, like you imply. Women attempt suicide at a higher rate. Why didn’t you discuss that? Is it being ignored?
The fact of the matter is suicide by firearm is the worst offender. Attempted suicide needs to be prevented for everyone equally, but firearm ownership should be more restricted, and there should also be tools out there to get your firearms away from you temporarily if you’re feeling suicidal or depressed. Men are more likely to own firearms, which is the issue that needs addressing to fix the disparity, not men being ignored.
Then any old asshole could just lie and say their neighbor or family member or spouse is suicidal, and disarm them. Abusers absolutely will exploit that to subjugate their victims.
And it’s not really moral to say those men shouldn’t be allowed to kill themselves if they want anyway. Do people have self-ownership or not? Yes or no?
Others could be injured in a firearm suicide, and someone still has to clean up the mess. Self-euthanasia is it’s own topic, but I think most could agree that the solution to assisted suicide isn’t allowing unstable people to own firearms.
Any other solution would require getting permission from the state to die in some way or another, meaning you effectively don’t have a right to die on your terms.
I disagree, ropes are easy to find or make, and you only need a couple pounds of force to asphyxiate; people hang themselves from doorknobs and shit, it’s super reliable if you do it right.
Allowing unstable people to own firearms is a danger to others, and would only increase impulsive suicides and messy survivors.
It comes down whether you find that having a gun is a fundamental right or something. I just don’t think it is. Yes, it’s a perfectly acceptable cost for a random acquaintance to make a fake complaint and get my gun taken. It would be only a mild inconvenience to have my gun taken away even permanently. I do like going to the range and shooting, it’s a fun sport for sure, but it’s not my identity.
It’s not just a fundamental right but the basis by which rights even can exist. Without access to violence, you cannot say no, and you cannot stop other people from doing whatever they want to you, meaning you are without rights without access to weaponry, namely guns.
Violence does not require firearms, nor would our pea shooters do anything to an Abrams or Bradley, or anything else slightly up armored. Unless you think this “fundamental right” includes anti-tank and anti-air weaponry, then the argument is moot. Homemade explosives will be much better for the fight than your “operator firearm” with no tactics training. Then, during the fight, there will be plenty of guns to be looted from those fighting you. Revolutions don’t require armed citizens. They never have. They require smart and inventive citizens who use gorilla tactics.
Idk what world you live in, but i say no all the time to people and i stop them from doing whatever they want to me all the time without resorting to violence, havent resorted to violence at all since i was teenager. If the cops want to arrest me, a gun won’t stop them either.
Yes we have self ownership but i would also want my family and friends to stop me if i got irrational for a moment and tried to burn down my house. I do believe we should have a right to euthanasia but if im not terminally ill i absolutely want my family to stop my from committing suicide in a moment of desperation.
That’s your choice, sure, but not everyone’s, and forcing people to live is very, very much worse than death. I’ve witnessed it happen for myself. All suicide prevention is is denying someone else their autonomy, self-ownership, and rights so you can make yourself feel better. Even in crisis, people do not lose their rights.
Yes euthanasia is very logical, but allowing people to kill themselves in a moment of desperation is not. Sure, if there’s an argument that perpetual depression is a good reason for euthanasia, i buy that.
But letting someone kill themselves because they got really drunk and really sad one night, for example is not “respecting self autonomy.”
Real question here. I don’t know how the number of attempts is calculated. If a single person attempts unsuccessfully 3 times, then is that recorded as 3 separate attempts? Or is this recording the number of unique people who have attempted suicide any number of times?
If it’s the former then it may be an indicator that women prefer methods of suicide that are less likely to succeed, but it is much harder to tell how many individual women actually attempt suicide compared to men.
Also, if a person is suffering enough that they’re seriously contemplating suicide, is taking that option away from them really the right thing to do? There’s also the issue of any such system being abused. It’s easy to imagine law enforcement using this as a way to disarm groups and individuals for political reasons.
For the first part, I’m not sure how it’s counted.
For the last, I think we need legalized assisted suicide. I don’t think suicide should be taken on a whim, but I do think it should be legal for people suffering, and they should have access to painless methods. They should first be checked to see if there’s anything we can do to help them though. (All of this should be paid for through taxes, not by the person suffering. Elon Musk has more than enough money to cover this for everyone.)
it would be a national crisis. “Something would have to be done!”
People are already saying something has to be done because it is a national crisis. Toxic gun culture prevents any serious actions
Comprehensive mental health care for all is not being blocked by gun culture, it’s being blocked by the typical Republican calls of “SOCIALISM!!”
The right has been pretty open about what kind of America they want to live in and what they’re willing to do to get there. We should all believe them and take them seriously, because they are fucking serious.
Fascist militias are popping up left and right, and the only gun control measures that pass end up restricting the rights of citizens in blue states while red states continue expanding their own. Unless you can magically disarm the entire nation simultaneously that cat is out of the bag.
I’m optimistic about the future and hold no deluded fantasies of armed conflict, but there may come a time where you’ll wish you had access to normal capacity magazines and non-nerfed rifles. Jon Stewart is not going to come rescue you when they have you on your knees in front of a ditch.
Disarming the working class under the current hyper-capitalist regime doesn’t really work in our favor either, and in most instances gun control is proven to be a political loser that equals to nothing more than a waste of time/effort and only serves to cripple a campaign.
Solid.
You were doing so well until you tried the “People care so much more about women’s health! Pity me!” line.
Strange how Viagra is required to be covered by all insurance but birth control isn’t. Whose priorities are privileged there?
It’s not about pitying me, it’s about pitying the state of men in general, where, if the genders were reversed, it would be considered a national crisis.
For example:
https://universitybusiness.com/men-are-falling-behind-in-higher-ed-and-it-may-not-be-letting-up/
Key stats:
“Women became the majority demographic to attend college decades ago, and today, they make up almost 60% of U.S. college undergraduates.”
(between 2017 and 2022) “male enrollment at 4-year public institutions has dropped nearly 6% more than women, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Among all student demographics in this sector, white men experienced the sharpest decline in enrollment, falling nearly 20%.”
“The rate at which men are graduating from 4-year institutions is 6% less than that of women, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.”
“The Class of 2023 reported that while 68% of young men want to go to college, only 57% expect to actually attend. On the other hand, 83% of young women want to go to college, and 77% expect to go.”
Or…
“In 2021, the average life expectancy was 73.2 years for men and 79.1 years for women.”
None of this is incorrect.
But I have been hearing about this plenty. For example, in the article we are discussing.
Mental health is not considered enough in general. What makes you think it is worth for men?
So close…
“manliness”
In this context, the definition is being a chronic asshole and getting away with it.
It’s so irritating that left-of-center publications always go all-in on anti-gun sentiment, while believing that a police state is going to save people. News flash: it won’t. Cops don’t care about you and have no responsibility to do anything to help you, or to prevent violence against you. Cops are often the ones involved in protecting the people on the right that use violence to suppress people on the left.
For fucks sake, we literally saw a full year of violence by police against peaceful BLM protestors that just want to stop extrajudicial police killings; we caw cops turn protests into riots, and then use the riots as their excuse for using more violence.
I reject their authoritarian leanings, in the same way that I reject the authoritarian bullshit from Republicans.
Your misunderstanding is thinking everyone left of center wants to round up all the guns, ripping them from the hands of anyone who wont give them willingly. Anyone who has thought about it knows we cant get rid of every last gun and it would be a tireless effort, like the war on drugs, to try.
No, I only ask we do a better job at regulating these weapons. It is no small task and it will always come down to how well a job our local communities are doing. The real issue is just as the article states, people aren’t getting the social services they need and are being driven into poverty by an oppressive work culture. There is no way any poor community can deal with these issues with everything else that’s going on while having zero resources.
Well, point of fact, the article in question here leads off with a link to a proposed rewrite of the 2nd amendment to abolish the right to private gun ownership.
That’s fucking stupid, and will never happen in any of our lifetimes. If you disagree, please read up on the process for changing Constitutional Amendments in the USA and then take a look at the political demographics of our 50 states.
There’s no way you could get 3/4 of the 50 states to agree to abolish our 2A rights. And that is a wonderful fact that I celebrate because I love our freedom.
The real question is what solutions would actually do something about it, most proposed are innefectual or ripe for abuse. Very seldom is one actually meaningful and not too dangerous. Frankly, the only one I can think of would be making private sale go through NICs, but it could be implimented better than all the proposed plans I’ve seen so far in a way that makes both people upset and happy at the same time (which is what a compromise is, let’s be real.) Frankly I also think the improved social services would have more to offer us in regards to this problem anyway. Any other laws I’ve heard proposed are either entirely meaningless (like assault weapons bans, reloading mags is trivial) or way too easily abused (like mental health checks, which could [would] be weaponized against the trans community in a heartbeat).
Truth told, I don’t know the answer. Sorry. I can believe in a society that doesn’t allow the proliferation of weapons to people with criminal intent and still not know the exact mechanism to get us there. Frankly, it has to start with a cultural change where everyone agrees enough is enough because we will never strong arm a nation of millions into saying, “meh, nevermind about the guns actually.”
In my mind it starts at the lowest levels of our society. If we could give communities the support to take care of each other at the most basic level then they could possibly take responsibility for not allowing travesty to happen again and again.
It’s a numbers game really. Say you subsidize the poorest neighborhoods across America. Sure there will be pockets of greedy people trying to hoard those resources but if done correctly there will be communities that stabilize and flourish. If quality of life improves for maybe 2/3 of the communities your trying to impact then overall you will start to drive violent crime down statistically. Ok, what about the money pits you just invested in and show no improvement? Sunk cost. America is big you move those resources somewhere else and see if something takes root.
Like I said I don’t know and am just kinda rambling.
Your misunderstanding is thinking everyone left of center wants to round up all the guns, ripping them from the hands of anyone who wont give them willingly.
Everyone? No. But it’s a primary goal of the Democratic party. “No one wants to take your guns” rungs super-fucking-hollow when you have states actively banning firearms.
I would rather change the social circumstances than worry about regulating tools. When you fix the underlying systemic problems–many of which are an intended side effect of capitalism, e.g. poverty–then you don’t see the same kind of violent outbursts. Racism, poverty, misogyny - these are all things that result in violence among many other negative social consequences. Violence is just the most obvious one.
I agree, but at the same time you can’t deny the statistic. The US is the only developed country with regular mass shootings. We are behind the ball when it comes to Healthcare but I’m inclined to believe that isn’t the only factor.
I agree; it isn’t. We can look at countries that have high levels of gun ownership and also have very low rates of violence, and see that there are real differences in culture. For instance, Finland has very high rates of individual gun ownership (probably because they have a very hostile neighbor), but no mass shootings and very low levels of violence. Switzerland has high rites of gun ownership and allows citizens to have machine guns, and has no mass shootings. At the other end of the spectrum, England and Australia both have rates of violence on par with the US (albeit lower murder rates), and very, very low gun ownership.
I think that wealth inequality and lack of social safety networks are probably the biggest single issue, although systemic racism is certainly a part of it as well. I think that lack of access to health care falls under wealth inequality; while, technically, every has access, most can’t afford it. Our criminal “justice” system is also badly flawed; we focus on punishment rather than reform, so we’re getting people back out - in many cases- that are worse when they went in.
Which states are taking the weapons you would use for self defense?
California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Hawai’i, New York, Massachussets, New Jersey, and that’s just off the top of my head.
Now, can you point out where in the Bruen decision it was stated that the second amendment only applies to handguns intended for self-defense?
The original argument was, 'how will I protect myself."
In a self defense situation I believe a hand gun will suffice.
You believe it will. But that is not always the case. And self defense from what, precisely?
Moreover, self defense was not the reason for 2A. It is a reason, but not the reason. 2A is what allows community activists to band together to protect people giving out food to homeless people, or prevent fascists from beating drag queens that are trying to read stories, because–in both cases–the cops are on the side of the oppressors.
Mm. Ok, but I am much more practical then you are. So, I’m not sure I am equipped to address all your concerns about what rights are being infringed and what a well regulated militia is. What commas go where…
Ridiculous take
I’m not sure it would be a tireless effort:
Step 1: offer major tax incentives for turning in your gun. Turning in a $500 handgun? $2000 tax write off. Something like that.
Step 2: I believe we have serial numbers in all guns right? Could we then charge a license fee for their ownership? Own a $500 handgun? Fun ownership costs police more money to do their jobs. Pay a yearly $50 fee to keep your gun.
Step 2b: Along with that fee, before you can own a gun you must attend an extensive class on the use, safety, and safe storage of your gun. Understand if your gun is used by another, you bear a portion of blame if it is used improperly.
Step 2c: After initial training, must attend annual (or maybe biannual) refresher. These can be fun. A get together with other gun enthusiasts and the opportunity to shoot at a range together. But a reiteration of safety.
Even if that didn’t get rid of all guns, the remaining ones would be much better taken care of. I think Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership but doesn’t seem to have America’s issue with them. I think the difference is training before they get their guns.
Until 75% of the country agrees with you that they don’t want or need the right to bear arms, everything listed after step 1 is unconstitutional. The reason being that you cannot add cost or hoops to jump through to exercise rights. Test all of these with any other right and see how fucked up it is. The following should be taken slightly tongue in cheek, but illustrating the difference in treatment people have with the second clear through absurdity.
Step 1: Offer major tax incentives to not vote or wave your right to searches and seizures. Skip the presidential election? $2000 tax write off. Allow the police to search your home and vehicle at any time they want? $5000 tax write off.
Step 2: You have to have a state issued ID for services. Could we charge a license fee to access the polls, or perform any sort of protest action? Want to vote? $200 for your voter ID stamp that lasts 4 years. Want to join a protest or picket? The police might need to keep the peace. $50 per protest.
Step 2b: Along with these fees, before you can vote you need to attend an extensive class on the people and issues on the ballot, run by either the DNC or RNC based on if your state is red or blue (or whomever paid the most for the position). If you want to post politically inclined statements in print or electronically, you need to attend journalism training on safe words and opinions. Understand that if you hurt or offended someone with statements you made, you are legally responsible for that distress.
Step 2c: After initial voter education training, journalism training, and jury process training, you must attend at least biannual refresher courses to ensure you are educated on the recommended politicians and proposed laws, changes in acceptable speech and societal norms, and how to be a good juror to retain the right to a free jury. These can be fun. A get together of all your fellow citizens as you are reeducated on how the government wants you to use your rights.
This might not prevent people from voting for the wrong candidates and laws, but the remaining model citizens will keep the discord in society down. China has a vastly higher number of citizens than the US, but doesn’t have all of the political instability and fighting. I think the difference is the mandatory citizen training and reeducation camps.
Thank you for this perspective. It nicely illustrates why the simple solution I suggested is not simple at all.
Thank you for even objectively considering my perspective. The 2nd amendment has a metric shitload of strong feelings surrounding it, which makes it an outlier from all the other rights in the constitution currently. I personally believe every right needs to be defended equally zealously, because there is always a tendency towards erroding them. I wouldn’t even put it past some politicians to actually try my ludicrous voter suppression parts by offering monetary incentives to not vote in districts that aren’t already gerrymandered to hell. Or the same for 4th amendment rights. Looking at you, fascist wing of the GOP.
The constitution is intended to grow and evolve with the country, which is why we have ways to do this. It’s not easy though, by design. Obviously SOMETHING needs to change, be it guns, mental health, policing, wealth equality, or personal security. I, once again personally, think that the root cause of violent crime lies under wealth inequality, lack of feeling secure and productive in society/their community, and physical/mental health rather than just access to firearms. I also think it is easier to get a simple majority of the country to agree to fixing our broken healthcare system, and make substantive steps to curb wealth inequality than it is to get 75% of both houses of Congress and then 75% of State Governments to agree to reduce or eliminate gun rights. But I know I’m an outlier here myself, and there are better minds than mine out there.
I’d love to have a viable candidate to vote for that wants to keep individual gun rights, implement a UBI in place of the rats nest of gutted social services, offer universal healthcare to include mental health, fix the tax code, close loopholes, tax automation, and codify abortion, gay marriage, and LGBTQ rights. But since that wouldn’t rile up the extreme ends of the voter bases, I won’t be holding my breath.
My point simply was you will never be able to get all the guns off the street. You can create incentives, laws, etc. but they will only be as effective as maybe the drug laws we enforce. Basically if we implemented what you suggested what we would get is better regulation. The end goal isn’t forcibly remove all guns from circulation. So when it comes ro personal protection, yes, you can still pray to the mighty hand gun.
So you want people to arm themselves to keep the most well equipped police force in the world in check? I’ll wait for you to see the flaw in your argument…
Oh, I’m in favor of removing cops toys too. And crushing police unions, and removing qualified immunity.
But it turns out that yeah, when you have large groups of heavily armed citizens, that cops do, in fact, dial back their violence.
Basically the Stanford prison experiment tbh.
The most well equipped place force in the world seems to be scared of school shooters. They may have equipment but they have no real training outside of “everyone wants to kill you, here’s how you can get away with killing them”
We need to start reminding them that their beloved Founding Fathers wore makeup, powdered wigs, frilly blouses and tights.
Yeah but that was for showing off wealth. You had to make sure the poor people knew you were their better.
I run a bakery and helped a lady with a cake for her husband. She was constantly asking me if these were masculine enough colors and designs lol. I tricked them with trans pride colors. Worrying about your masculinity is one of the least masculine things you can do.
Well, hopefully you didn’t get her beaten by an abusive spouse.
I have never eaten a cake that had “masculine features and designs”
Being manly is vital to the right wing.
Call it “extreme-right”. The “extreme-left” are also like this, the extremes touch themselves. Or just call them “conservatives” since right-wing is a term that contains a lot of parties, like the left.
No, the statement was correct already.
If you think it’s right better go back to school.
If there is an “extreme left,” it’s people who want equality, fair voting, free health care, free higher education, and don’t give a shit how masculine someone is. Doesn’t sound extreme to me.
What a bizarre subject to attempt to “muh both sides”.
I know this goes a bit off from the article (I skimmed). But I think a lot of this toxic masculinity comes from decades of media on what a American man should be.
They need to be strong, independent, smart (sometimes), ingenious, a natural leader, angry at the “system”, can shoot any gun with perfection, solve most all problems with a gun or a fist fight, never show any type of remorse or trauma from their violent “solutions”, muscular, always get the girl, only drink brown liquors or beer, never bend, never negotiate, always win, and can walk away from an explosion without flinching.
This shit has been around since the 1940’s and it still in use today. It used to be the Lone Ranger, Superman, batman. Then it was the strong independent cowboy taking on the “savages”, The 70’s it was Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood taking on the Gangs of the inner cities. The 80’s and 90’s were Rambo and terminator, the 2000’s with Mission Impossible, Jason Borne, John Wick. And James Bond all through out. Just to name a few
Not to take away from the entertainment of these movies and characters but I see lot’s of men that take these fictional characters and try to make it their personality. But reality doesn’t work that way. They can’t go shoot your problems away. Hot women just don’t fall leg spread for these guys (which makes them angrier). AND some men don’t want to be this unrealistic version of an American man. Which for some reason pisses off those men that do want it…
Agreed. However, something has to be said for the fact that a lot of American society and economy has shifted value away from “dangerous” or otherwise physically demanding labor (e.g. coal mining, farm field work before automation) towards jobs that don’t depend on how much muscle mass you have or other expressions of sex hormones. That value system was encoded into cultural norms and media, which, without the corresponding environment, just became a caricature.
The problem of focusing too much on the culture is that we miss what shaped it in the first place: a need to feel valued. If men aren’t valued for their physique (or, to be frank, their biological expendability), then what’s their value? The Left was too afraid of ruining their Feminist credibility to offer any serious solutions. Meanwhile, the Right leaned in to that caricature, and offered a solution full of misogyny and arrogance. When presented a choice between an awful solution and no solution, it’s no wonder so many men fell prey to toxicity.
We need more non-toxic masculinity.
I don’t get this idea of having to have the state or society fulfill the need to be valued at all. Can you please explain further what you mean by that?
Didn’t mention the state, but it’s also relevant…
A group of people (e.g. organization, community, society, corporation, government, etc.) is capable of collectively attributing value. People need to feel valued. Therefore a group of people is capable of fulfilling people’s need to feel valued.
I’m not proposing a mandate, just a practical accounting.
But what do you mean in practicality? Something like equal rights or how much people are paid?
I think for example in certain jobs it’s mostly the pay that makes people feel not valued enough. When you have less money you can’t participate the same way as your neighbours or friends and then you feel left behind.
There’s more to how people express or feel value. For example, these are some virtues people seem to value: honor, respect, trust, accomplishment, pride, duty, loyalty.
Money is just one way an employer can convey value to their employees or a customer coveys value to a business. It may come as a shock, but outside of those relationships, money isn’t actually all that valuable.
Imagine someone being your friend just because you give them money… That’s what I mean.
Things like loyalty, honor, trust, accomplishment, etc. are happening in people themselves or in the personal relationships of individuals. How can a group of people give that to other people, when you don’t mean equal rights?
The one example I can think of are orders of merit. But these are obviously not things people need to thrive or experience feeling valued.
How can a group of people give that to other people, when you don’t mean equal rights?
Because the point of the post is mental health, not the merits of egalitarianism. I just wanted to point out that, for the gross majority of human history, men’s muscles and reproductive expendability were uniquely valuable traits. With automation and intellectual pursuits, those traits aren’t quite so necessary.
Or am I misunderstanding?
There is toxic people, of both genders, there is nothing inherently toxic to being a man, or a woman
And also their tendency to unleash face-eating leopards.
IMO, the focus should be on being a good person and not on conforming to unrealistic gender stereotypes. One’s gender presentation (or lack) is enhanced by universal positive attributes like honesty, confidence, commitment, charity, etc. This is not an original idea, but thought it worth saying.
Well said. We all spend a lot of time criticizing, and not enough time building up. Here are a few more (rather heavily paraphrased) ways to be a good person that I feel strongly about:
Admire people who recognize their insufficiency, mourn, show humility, seek justice, are merciful, have a pure heart, work for peace, or are oppressed for doing the right thing.
Understand you’re incapable of perfection, and so is everybody else.
If you’re angry with someone, call them an idiot, or curse them, beware of the consequences.
Settle conflict with others quickly before it escalates.
Be faithful to all your vows in both thought and action.
Resist the urge for vengeance; flip the script by going above and beyond for those who take advantage of you.
Give to those who ask for help or want to borrow what you have.
Stand out from the crowd by showing kindness and compassion to those who hate you.
In my humble opinion all these fellas just seem to be running around like a beheaded chicken in search for the slightest amount self worth. Instead they started yearning for surrogates like wealth, power, status and what not.
The problem with these surrogates is that you cannot ever get enough of it. It’ll never fill the gaping hole which is their sense of self.
Be an individual. If you’re caught up in molding yourself to a type, you’re almost inevitably a caricature to some extent.
America, not even once.
Removed by mod
