• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are men becoming cowards?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I came across this article: Where are the men of courage? They're gone thanks to 'toxic masculinity' (nypost.com)

It's the New York Post, so it seems to carry a somewhat right-wing slant, although the article does raise a couple of interesting points, citing two recent incidents where men ostensibly failed in their chivalric duty to protect. It noted how cops milled around outside the school for over an hour in Uvalde TX while an active shooter was killing people inside. It also cited another recent case of a woman being attacked on a subway in NYC, while people just stood around and watched; no one did anything to help her.

So. We vilify action men, brand chivalry and valor “toxic masculinity,” stamp on the manly virtues that made civilization possible.

Then we are shocked when armed cops stand around outside a classroom while children are slaughtered, or when straphangers watch passively as a woman is assaulted on the subway.

What’s the answer?

Democrats cynically demonize Republicans over guns as a motivator for their base. Republicans fall back on hardening security to prevent more school shootings.

But little Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, where an 18-year-old gunman murdered 19 small children and two of their teachers last week, was already pretty hardened.

Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District had its own six-strong police force, armed security guards, perimeter fencing and a locked classroom policy, according to a security plan posted on its website.

Still, the shooter found an unlocked door, and the only thing that might have saved those children were men of courage and action rushing into the line of fire. Yes, men.

Instead, they had armed police officers milling about outside their classrooms, reportedly for over an hour, as blood flowed unchecked and innocent souls rose to heaven.

If you were the desperate parents prevented by the cops from going inside the school to save your kids, your rage would be rightly insatiable.

But armchair Twitter warriors, armed with minimal real data, ranting about cowardice and drumming up death threats for Uvalde police, are missing the point.

You can’t bully people to be brave or nag them into valor.

They either are or they aren’t that way.

They either are the first responders of 9/11 running toward danger to save strangers, men who strapped on oxygen tanks to climb 110 flights of stairs to their deaths — or they are not.

We used to venerate men like the entire shift of 15 firefighters from Midtown’s Engine 54/Ladder 4/Battalion 9, whose fading photographs still face the heedless crowds on Eighth Avenue.

Men with families to live for, who rushed to their deaths on 9/11, because they believed in a system of honor and duty, in which they were destined to be guardians of the community; men like Battalion Chief Edward Geraghty, 45, firefighters Alan Feinberg, 48, Jose Guadalupe, 37, Leonard Ragaglia, 36, Michael Lynch, 30, Christopher Santora, 23, and fellow heroes.

Now their inheritors show up at emergencies and the public throws bottles of urine at them. Social-justice warriors and their eager media accomplices smear cops every day as racists and murderers. #ACAB (“All cops are ********”) is their favorite hashtag.

We pathologize manly virtues and bow to the tyranny of identity politics that seeks power by overthrowing a make-believe patriarchy. We raise boys in a soup of reproach and negativity that tells them their intrinsic nature is diseased.

“Traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful,” the American Psychological Association declared in 2019. These were the masculine attributes it listed as diseased: “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, aggression, anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk and violence.”

The only acceptable man now is a man who wants to be a woman. We celebrate “pregnant men” and “chestfeeding” men.

You see, in the drive to destroy masculinity, we’ve had to erase women as well.

So, what do men do? They recoil and retreat. They leave the stage for hysterical epsilon men like Beto O’Rourke who whine and posture but can’t protect a thing.

Then when we need a strong, quick-thinking Gary Cooper to save us from outlaws, he’s nowhere to be found.

He has been rendered extinct, leaving 19 kids to be slaughtered inside a classroom while men and women wearing the legacy costume of toxic masculinity stand around waiting for orders.

“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise,” C.S. Lewis foretold in his dystopian 1943 book “The Abolition of Man.”

“We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

I'm not sure what to think about the points raised in this article. It seems everyone has their own personal opinions about what it means to "be a man," but it seems the first requirement would be to be human.

I think our society has had a split personality on this issue. We vilify "toxic masculinity" but then lament its absence when it's needed.

I remember when people would make jokes about New York about people getting mugged openly in the street while passers by acted like nothing was wrong. People don't want to get involved, and that seemed to be the case with that subway incident. I saw another blogger observe that in New York, one has a duty to retreat, as opposed to the stand your ground doctrine. I can also see where there would be those who don't want to be the next George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse, so the decision to stand down and withdraw may also be a legally sensible one. Even if it means being called a coward, which itself seems to border on a form of toxic masculinity.

There's an episode of Star Trek called "The Enemy Within," where Captain Kirk is somehow split into two as a result of a transporter malfunction, with one being a good, gentle Kirk and the other being evil and violent. One of the points raised in the episode is that it's the man's "evil" side which gives him his strength and ability to make hard decisions, when it's properly controlled and disciplined by the "good" side. But the "good" side, just by itself, can not function.
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
I'm not sure what to think about the points raised in this article. It seems everyone has their own personal opinions about what it means to "be a man," but it seems the first requirement would be to be human.
I don't think it's only about men and about men not having courage.
there is a whole host of groups and odd people on earth doing odd things.

but I would not blame people, the evil responsible for crazy world is indifference and power struggle that we are witnessing in the last 70 years.

power struggle is where governments and various political groups and mostly lobbies don't have strong enough aparatus to gain power any more, so what they do is give people more freedom and indirectly more power in exchange for more power.
Everyone wants to vote for more freedom, more rights, but nobody cares where does this lead to? (to ask masses what to do) this is called "indifference", indifference not recorded anytime in human history.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Just going by the title of the article and what you've quoted I think they have misidentified the source of the symptoms. I think the problem is that people are afraid of lawsuits and potential criminal charges. This was not the case for the 911 responders. They knew they wouldn't be sued for responding to a fire. It would be the case for the police going in after the shooter if they did something not in the guidebook, and it would be the case for me if I stopped a violent person on the subway. I have heard stories. You can be sued for helping, for attacking the attacker. There is no protection for that, and you'll lose your shirt. You can also be tied up in court for a long time proving that you were just helping out. There's a lot more to it than simply stopping an attacker. The moment you get involved you are in a way guilty of getting involved.

There is a similar but worse problem in other countries where people won't even help victims of car crashes. They get charged for taking them to the hospital or accused or worse. People steer clear of those who need help.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
The second caae might be what's called the "bystander effect", which is if there are a lot of people witnessing an incident there's an expectation someone else will get intervene.

But I suspect if this is a true phenomenon it could be that as people feel more stressed in society that there's less feeling of community and more "everyone for himself".
 

Suave

Simulated character
I tend to courageously stay out of other people's business :cool: However, I am considering getting a better phone camera for me to film and post online viral hits showing incidents of violence.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I came across this article: Where are the men of courage? They're gone thanks to 'toxic masculinity' (nypost.com)

It's the New York Post, so it seems to carry a somewhat right-wing slant, although the article does raise a couple of interesting points, citing two recent incidents where men ostensibly failed in their chivalric duty to protect. It noted how cops milled around outside the school for over an hour in Uvalde TX while an active shooter was killing people inside. It also cited another recent case of a woman being attacked on a subway in NYC, while people just stood around and watched; no one did anything to help her.













I'm not sure what to think about the points raised in this article. It seems everyone has their own personal opinions about what it means to "be a man," but it seems the first requirement would be to be human.

I think our society has had a split personality on this issue. We vilify "toxic masculinity" but then lament its absence when it's needed.

I remember when people would make jokes about New York about people getting mugged openly in the street while passers by acted like nothing was wrong. People don't want to get involved, and that seemed to be the case with that subway incident. I saw another blogger observe that in New York, one has a duty to retreat, as opposed to the stand your ground doctrine. I can also see where there would be those who don't want to be the next George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse, so the decision to stand down and withdraw may also be a legally sensible one. Even if it means being called a coward, which itself seems to border on a form of toxic masculinity.

There's an episode of Star Trek called "The Enemy Within," where Captain Kirk is somehow split into two as a result of a transporter malfunction, with one being a good, gentle Kirk and the other being evil and violent. One of the points raised in the episode is that it's the man's "evil" side which gives him his strength and ability to make hard decisions, when it's properly controlled and disciplined by the "good" side. But the "good" side, just by itself, can not function.
It's the PC and SJW crowd in attempts to feminize males.

Trust me. It isn't working save with the artificial world created in social media.

Where I live, we are still manly men!
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Just going by the title of the article and what you've quoted I think they have misidentified the source of the symptoms. I think the problem is that people are afraid of lawsuits and potential criminal charges. This was not the case for the 911 responders. They knew they wouldn't be sued for responding to a fire. It would be the case for the police going in after the shooter if they did something not in the guidebook, and it would be the case for me if I stopped a violent person on the subway. I have heard stories. You can be sued for helping, for attacking the attacker. There is no protection for that, and you'll lose your shirt. You can also be tied up in court for a long time proving that you were just helping out. There's a lot more to it than simply stopping an attacker. The moment you get involved you are in a way guilty of getting involved.

There is a similar but worse problem in other countries where people won't even help victims of car crashes. They get charged for taking them to the hospital or accused or worse. People steer clear of those who need help.
Exactly. People fear of being sued and for good reason.

There is no doubt we live in a litigant society. Verified by the fact of the massive glut of billboards and television shilling of lawyers promising million dollar payouts.


.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I think our society has had a split personality on this issue. We vilify "toxic masculinity" but then lament its absence when it's needed.
What? o_O No.

Bravery isn't "toxic masulinity." The idea that only toxically masculine men can be brave probably is, though.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't see this as a male/female thing at all. Both men and women stood by doing nothing. ALL of the bystanders are to blame.

Why is it that only men have a 'chivalric duty' to intervene? Doesn't every person who *could* intervene have a duty to do so? And, in today's world, the difference between men and women don't mean as much in these types of encounters. many women would be able to fight better than many men.

the cops, on the other hand, are a *very* different matter. it is their *job* to intervene when something is going down. And, again, it is their job whether they are men or women. All of the cops at the scene should be summarily dismissed with bias. They failed to do what they are paid to do.

In any case, this has NOTHING to do with masculinity and everything to do with being a decent person.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
the cops, on the other hand, are a *very* different matter. it is their *job* to intervene when something is going down. And, again, it is their job whether they are men or women.
Not in the US.

In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled that police don't have the duty to prevent harm:

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

This ruling (or the underlying law, if the ruling is correct) is probably part of the problem here.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
There's an episode of Star Trek called "The Enemy Within," where Captain Kirk is somehow split into two as a result of a transporter malfunction, with one being a good, gentle Kirk and the other being evil and violent. One of the points raised in the episode is that it's the man's "evil" side which gives him his strength and ability to make hard decisions, when it's properly controlled and disciplined by the "good" side. But the "good" side, just by itself, can not function.
Well It's what Jordan Peterson talks about constantly. I think it's a good point.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
I consider that the person who wrote this article is a complete moron. First, Miranda Devin is not an historian, nor a psychologist nor a sociologist and doesn't know anything about combat whatsoever. She doesn't practice martial or martial sports to any level, was almost certainly never involved in any fighting of her entire life. She is not a police or former police officer and never was in the military let alone in a combat or law enforcement unit. In other words, she doesn't know anything about the subject she's talking about which is violence and courage in the face of a physical threat. Note that she is far, far, from being the only commentator who have absolutely no knowledge or personal experience of any of those things. Most people don't venture to present solutions and when they do they are invariably overly simplistic "Hollywood logic-like" idiocies.

She is also a complete moron also because she doesn't know what toxic masculinity means. She confuses aggression for courage, violence for sense of sacrifice, cruelty for discipline and vanity for honor. No, chivalry isn't considered as a form of toxic masculinity, on the opposite. The problem is that bullies like to present themselves as chivalrous, but they are not. That's what toxic masculinity is trying to qualify this sick adherence to impossible standards and lead men to compensate by acts of violence and insensitivity.

Finally the last thing that makes her a complete moron is not knowing simple phenomenon like the the bystander effect or fog of war.

I would also note the sexism latent in the entire article. I'd like to mention that courage isn't a more masculine trait than a feminine one. Ironically, neither is aggression. There is no such things as widespread shamming of "men of action" superheroes movies are still the top blockbusters, cops are still the heroes of half a million tv shows, the military is still beloved to the point of being fetishized in some instances as are athletes. Hell, violent gangsters are even lionized once in a while.

This is the rant of a moron who doesn't what she's talking; ranting about something she feels vaguely threatening to her understanding of the world and a distraction to the actual problem she's talking about: mass shootings in the US and other forms of grievous violence.
 
Last edited:

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
I tend to courageously stay out of other people's business :cool: However, I am considering getting a better phone camera for me to film and post online viral hits showing incidents of violence.
That actually seems to be what people do today.. it's sickening.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
She is also a complete moron also because she doesn't know what toxic masculinity means. She confuses aggression for courage, violence for sense of sacrifice, cruelty for discipline and vanity for honor. No, chivalry isn't consider as a form of toxic masculinity, on the opposite. The problem is that bullies like to present themselves as chivalrous, but they are not.
That's what you think about toxic masculinity. Meanwhile so many radical 3rd wave feminists think pretty much everything a man does is toxic masculinity. So my point is that their constant brow beating really does have a negative effect on society. I think it's a good point.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
That's what you think about toxic masculinity. Meanwhile so many radical 3rd wave feminists think pretty much everything a man does is toxic masculinity. So my point is that their constant brow beating really does have a negative effect on society. I think it's a good point.

I am a radical third wave feminist and no that's not really what's being said and popularized within feminist circles, not even by me (search long enough and you might found a crazy or two, but that's true for anything). The big problem is that people like Miranda Devin or Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro and the like don't listen nor read what feminists, especially not what radical 3rd wave feminist say and since most people don't either, due to lack of interest and the fact that radical feminists are by definition small in number and in influence, they can just gaslight as much as they want and express their prejudices as facts.

PS: The "man hating/man fearing form of radical feminism was more prevalent in the 2nd wave and can still be found amongst TERFs which are, ironically, often allies of social conservatives and amongst the few feminists they do listen too. That might be where their prejudices comes from. It's easy to think that a group of people are generally like the sample you have knowledge off.

PPS: I would also like to note the toxic masculinity critique was born in the mythopoetic men's movement, not within feminism. It was referenced and explained in a more academically researched manner in the work of Raewyn Connell under the term "hegemonic masculinity".
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
I am a radical third wave feminist and no that's not really what's being said and popularized within feminist circles, not even by me (search long enough and you might found a crazy or two, but that's true for anything). The big problem is that people like Miranda Devin or Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro and the like don't listen nor read what feminists, especially not what radical 3rd wave feminist say and since most people don't either, due to lack of interest and the fact that radical feminists are by definition small in number and in influence, they can just gaslight as much as they want and express their prejudices as facts.
Then you haven't watched much of Jordan Peterson. He does listen and reason with feminists. I don't know much about the other two people you mentioned so I can't say.

I think what you're doing here is moving the goal post. A common tactic of liberals. Any time someone confronts them about one of their radical agendas or talking points they say that's not what they meant. Meanwhile they keep pushing the same ideas under new names or change the wording.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Then you haven't watched much of Jordan Peterson. He does listen and reason with feminists. I don't know much about the other two people you mentioned so I can't say.

I think what you're doing here is moving the goal post. A common tactic of liberals. Any time someone confronts them about one of their radical agendas or talking points they say that's not what they meant. Meanwhile they keep pushing the same ideas under new names or change the wording.

So now Jordan Peterson knows more about radical third wave feminists than radical third wave feminists themselves? Did he retroactively undo my post? How did I move the goalpost? My position hasn't changed at all. What are these ideas I am pushing under different names and wordings?

PS: Debating with people in public forums isn't listening to people at all. Just look at yourself. You are debating with me, but you are not listening to me at all. You still are under the impression that toxic masculinity means, especially for radical 3rd wave feminists, "hating on men" and "being against chivalrous values and behavior" even though I specifically mentioned that it was not the case and presented why (and I so happen to be a radical 3rd wave feminist). Debates, especially public, political or internet debates, are more show than anything else.
 
Last edited:

74x12

Well-Known Member
So now Jordan Peterson knows more about radical third wave feminists than radical third wave feminists themselves?
I didn't say that he knows more about feminism than them. I said he listens to them. But he definitely knows what he's talking about more than they do.
How did I move the goalpost? My position hasn't changed at all. What are these ideas I am pushing under different names and wordings?
By means of word games. You define toxic masculinity narrowly; but in practice we all know what it comes down to. So the brass tacks of it is that so many things are falling under "toxic masculinity" that normal average people would consider to be actually virtuous and they are right. It's good to be manly; it's good to be strong. It's not right to be weak as a man.

So you can say "that's not what we mean by toxic masculinity" but it really is. Hope you don't this personally but that's how I see it.
 
Top