scoobdog

It's bit hard to elaborate here because, by all objective measures, you're using anger correctly. There are males (like a certain southern gentleman we know) who would express anger towards women and somehow connect that anger to the fact that Bernie didn't win. Absurdity of the example aside, the man in this example is theoretically acknowledging that the anger is misplaced (probably as its own defense mechanism) and identifying a legitimate cause for anger. What's missing is the last part... how to go about resolving that anger. Everyone should utilize therapy, but that's not exactly a solution. You can't go to therapy every time you're angry. To put it another way, when you get angry at someone, especially it they've earned that anger, you have to do more than just resolve the anger. Once the anger is alleviated, you then have to set up conditions for regaining trust in that same offender, to either ensure that said person doesn't make you angry again or to protect yourself in the inevitable event they reoffend. Assuming the latter, now you have to change your behavior to accommodate the new rules for interacting with that individual. The problem is that all of these steps should be automatic - you're not supposed to think about how you're going to treat your best friend after he or she hurts your feelings, you just know what happens next and you move forward. When it's not automatic, you go to a therapist to help you through the process. Now, if you were raised to suppress that anger, none of those automatic steps exist. If lil Scoob's mom tell him to shake hands and make up with his little brother, all those steps are presumed, and, if lil Scoob has a high enough EQ, he's likely watched other people, including women, deal with anger and figured out for himself how to create those steps on his own. If lil Scoob deosn't have that natural ability, he's going to need someone to walk him through that process. A therapist could certainly do all that, but no therapist is going to want to live with little Scoob long enough to walk him through a coping process ever time his little brother tells him he's an idiot.

You do know, Ghosty. You’re allowing your deep seated animus to those you consider antagonistic to overrule logic.

I don’t want to interject too much here since you and Buddy are really advancing this discussion, but shouldn’t there be a third option? The. “Told/conditioned” option is broad enough to catch most social pressures, and at the same time it doesn’t capture the training aspect. Just because I (a man) know my anger derives from something unrelated and that processing my memories can give me several likely options for a program trigger, doesn’t mean I know how to deprogram the anger response. Social toxicity can’t account for that.

He was spamming the meme thread a couple of days ago.

It really isn’t. Being a man means hearing things you don’t like and don’t agree with and accepting that you need to deal with people you don’t like and don’t agree with. I’m not piling on here, just changing your frame of reference. Personal responsibility means taking care of your own business, and it means only worrying about the things people say that affect you or the people you care about directly. Why is it hard to listen to something that won’t affect you?

Disco already kind of laid it out for you. You aren’t defined by other people, so it doesn’t matter if someone thinks you’re an idiot. In fact, Ghosty, you can be a man without anyone else acknowledging. Do you wash your own laundry? Do you shower? Can you cook your own meals? Self sufficiency is almost universally a sign of masculinity… and femininity. But, can you also listen to others?

Ghosty is locked in a feed back loop, it seems. Exactly. The worst thing about the patriarchy after all the women it oppresses is all the man children it enables. The dark side to any discussion about masculinity is the realization that the term as we previously knew it was a cover for male failures, and that complicates things. Masculinity isn’t being redefined as much as obliterated and replaced. We’re not just defining males as they should be in a post feminist world, but males as they should have been all along.

And, that’s the subtext to this discussion. To be blunt, not all men have sufficient EQ to read their partner’s needs on their own and that leads to an unbalanced relationship where the man has to be told what he needs to do. That’s not an excuse for men being stupid, just a statement on the current reality: it’s exactly as frustrating and destructive as it sounds. Ostensibly, the goal of redefining masculinity is to set a standard that male role models can pass on to boys. It would include teaching boys to not only explore their emotions but also deal with those emotions in a constructive way. One thing it shouldn’t have to include, but is sorely lacking in your example is the concept of personal responsibility. I’ve found that a lot of people are allergic to responsibility. I’m sure it’s something you deal with on an hourly basis: people that will immediately blame someone else when there’s a failure. As such, the rules for manhood may serve another purpose: to expect men to handle situations without having to be told. A lot of times I get resentful at work because I’m taking on tasks that others are responsible for. I can check myself because, in all honesty, no one really does it by themselves, so for ever job I take on above my duties, someone else is doing what’s necessary to turn my efforts into a complete project. Nonetheless, it’s frustrating that people are quick to blame others rather than swallow their pride and focus on fixing the problem instead of defending themselves. The thing is, if a guy at work can’t own up to making a mistake and offering a solution, what happens at home?

That would suggest you might rely too much on others to give you purpose. Your humanity can’t be taken away from you, but you can give it up. The OP that instigated this thread is the female author’s exploration into the appeal of masculinity gurus and right wing influencers. To sum it up, she’s positing that modern males lack a support network that these gurus provide, to the detriment of everyone. Some men need to be told how to interact with others…

Let's go with that. What do you feel your purpose should be?

I thought it was the same pupper too.

How so, Disco?

I think the term is self-explanatory. There is no definition for “masculinity.”

@ghostrek: You put a lot in there to unpack, but there is something at the core that needs to be addressed.... What you call toxic masculinity and toxic femininity are fallout from the demise of the traditional gender role, but they aren't fundamental issues in of themselves. Everybody you've ever encountered that's treated you as handicapped or, worse, as ineffectual is referencing a non-existent ideal, and it's that non-existence that is at the center. A non-existent ideal can't have role models, which means that there are fathers, brothers, surrogate males that can't be role models. A non-existent ideal can't impart any expectations to women who are seeking stable interactions with men. Other than the general assertion that men should find a way to make themselves useful in a world where women are empowered, there are no guidelines and no support structure. That leaves a void filled by extreme voices from either side.

I don't think any reasonable woman would ever expect a man to be a sugar daddy as the paragon of manhood: either such a man is emblematic of how useless men are in general or the man in question is an easy mark that bridges her relationship status until the undefined "right" man comes along. That's not to say the women you've had in your life treat you like andexpendable object, just that the attitude is rooted in the same toxic masculinity it's supposed to be refuting. As for the dudes, those are INCELs by any other name. The point is that in either, the reference is invariably the traditional gender role for men, and you're not really redefining anything. This is the heart of the issue. We've taken as fact that gender roles don't need to exist when, in fact, they do, and that comes about because the roles have far fewer rules and far broader expectations.

Flipping through my Apple News feed this morning, there was an spotlight tab titled "What does a 'good man' look like?" Since I'm a deep thinker when it comes to doing anything other than what I'm actually supposed to be doing at the time, I decided to read through some of it. There was a WaPo opinion piece in there that I'm not going to link but is worth reading if you can find it. In essence, the opinion's author did a lengthy and details analysis on how men have essentially languished in an age where the traditional definition of masculinity has been exposed as toxic while a replacement has not been forthcoming. Part of it is the justifiable fear that spending time talking about how men need support can divert attention from the real gains that women have made in the post "MeToo" world, but part of it is also the fact that no one really knows what a man should be in this age. It doesn't seem that complicated to me - a man should be able to freely discuss his needs in terms of how they better everyone around him. That, however requires a man who knows what he can do and how he can use those skills to help others; a lot to men have defined themselves entirely on their ability to "provide" for their family. Naturally, there are the misogynists of the world who fill the gap by pushing for return to the old "manly" ideals which, zeros sum as they are, completely invalidate women. However, on the opposite side, some women also refuse to discuss what kind of support a man needs because it sucks the oxygen out of the movement and it caters to men not taking responsibility for themselves. There isn't really any proper discussion about what a man should be, what should be expected of him, and what he can expect in returns. So, let's start with the difficult question: what should a modern man look like? What does he do? How does he contribute?

If he had also shown his heavy drinking habit at the time, it probably would have made the documentary even more realistic given that drinking and poor food choices tend to go hand in hand. I hadn't heard that he wrote a blog about being a serial philanderer and being accused of sexual assault.

Can’t beat that,

A no would have been fine, Ghosty. I've been over here for a week waiting for my special coffee. It was getting lonely.

Hell, climate change is likely the reason why all those people on the flight to Singapore ended up reconfiguring the ceiling with their heads. Clear air turbulence is yet another gift from all that heated air in our atmosphere.

Climate change sure is great, i'n't it?

I work half a day at home so I get the best of both worlds.

Those aren’t Catholic values.

I think I was just compelled to swear off micheladas....

More like a one-album wonder, but, yeah, it's similar phenomenon to Tupac - she was talented, but her work gets played up more than it might deserve simply because she died reaching her potential.