Are men becoming cowards?

[The Hammer]

So if I say to someone they need to "man up" or "be a man" then I'm displaying toxic masculinity? Yes or no?

Yes. What's "maning up" got to do with strength, courage, or anything else?

It's like the opposite of calling someone a pu.. cat.

 

[Stevicus]

How would an agressive, toxic male had made things better compared to a courageous and level headed male in the shooting referenced in the OP?

I don't see it as an either/or equation. There can be a bit of both.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think this is a good philosophy when we approach things for how they really are and not and over simplified view of things.
Lies are an easy example, as we lie for a myriad of things amd reasons and often seek justification for our mistruths. And sometimes it is not for ill but for good, such as momentarily keeping the calm and making last minute preparations before announcing a pending disaster to a nation. Or we lie to protect people, protect feelings, just as we lie to gain and selfishly improve our situation.

True, although it's all pretty much in the eye of the beholder and whose ox is gored.

Violence is much the same way. Where in nature do we consider it evil for an animal to defend amd protect its offspring?

Nothing is considered evil in nature, even animals which prey on others to survive.

How can it be evil to fight for those we love? Is it evil for the Ukrainians to fight back against Russia? Of course things like murder, picking fights and being easily incited to violence is wrong, but even occasionally British cops shot someone as an act of good to prevent an act of evil.
And needing an evil side for strength? Here is a great deal of strength and courage, free of evil intent, and done so these boys may become men.
The Painful Rite of Passage of the Satere-Mawe Tribe of Brazil
Morality just isn't so easily made into a frame black and white that can well hold.

I guess it depends on which individual qualities and personality types we're talking about. When it's war and politics, evil can be merely a matter who is on whose side.

 

[Stevicus]

I have to say: this sounds like an excuse for complacency for crappy behaviour from men.

I thought that you were proposing a sort of masculinity that tackles problems head-on. How do you reconcile this with the attitude you're suggesting? Why would a "manly" man look at his own faults and say "meh - I'm going to let those go. I'm too weak to deal with them, so I'm just going to tolerate my failures"?

In relation to the part you're quoting, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In relation to the part you're quoting, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'm talking about this resignation you're suggesting: that our good aspects and our bad aspects are a package deal, so it's futile to try to work on our bad aspects.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm talking about this resignation you're suggesting: that our good aspects and our bad aspects are a package deal, so it's futile to try to work on our bad aspects.

I wasn't suggesting any resignation. I really have no idea what you're getting at.

 

[74x12]

Yes. What's "maning up" got to do with strength, courage, or anything else?

It's like the opposite of calling someone a pu.. cat.

It's how people talk for thousands of years now in the West and even elsewhere in the world. I think it's important to continue to cultivate a manly culture. Of course women can be strong as well.

 

[The Hammer]

think it's important to continue to cultivate a manly culture.

Describe it in detail please.

 

[The Hammer]

It's how people talk for thousands of years now in the West and even elsewhere in the world.

And? That makes it right/OK?


I don't think so.

 

[74x12]

And? That makes it right/OK?


I don't think so.

Why do you know better than everyone else who came before? I see no reason to change.

Describe it in detail please.

Hard times make strong men which make easy times. Easy times make soft men who create hard times. So, I'd rather stay hard and keep the hard times from coming back. Too bad society as a whole doesn't see things my way or we could avoid a lot of hardship and trouble.

 

[The Hammer]

Why do you know better than everyone else who came before? I see no reason to change.

Why do you think the way things were done before are perfect and without flaw?


If that were the case we wouldn't attempt to change, no?

 

[The Hammer]

Hard times make strong men which make easy times. Easy times make soft men who create hard times. So, I'd rather stay hard and keep the hard times from coming back. Too bad society as a whole doesn't see things my way or we could avoid a lot of hardship and trouble

This has nothing to do with being a coward or courageous.

I show my emotions. I'll cry in public. Vulnerability is an asset. And I'm stronger because of it.

Edit: a smooth sea does not a Sailor make. But a rough, stormy sea, doesn't make a man unable to be compassionate, caring, and chivalrous.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I guess it depends on which individual qualities and personality types we're talking about. When it's war and politics, evil can be merely a matter who is on whose side.

This is where appeals to our nature as social animals must be emphasized as this is the closest we can get to a universal and objective morality.

 

[74x12]

Why do you think the way things were done before are perfect and without flaw?


If that were the case we wouldn't attempt to change, no?

I don't think they're perfect but making men weaker through brow beating and hen pecking (feminist tactics) it's not a good idea. It's going to result in disaster in my opinion.

This has nothing to do with being a coward or courageous.

I show my emotions. I'll cry in public. Vulnerability is an asset. And I'm stronger because of it.

Edit: a smooth sea does not a Sailor make. But a rough, stormy sea, doesn't make a man unable to be compassionate, caring, and chivalrous.

So you show your emotions. I mean if you read the Illiad, Achilles and other apparent paragons of manliness just cry in public for whatever reason they feel like at the moment. Other manly characters in the Bible for example also cry openly. So that's not necessarily unmanly. Possibly, it became associated with unmanliness during the 1600s when Europeans came in contact with Native Americans. In Native American culture it was unmanly to cry in many tribes. So of course that idea started being adopted by Europeans who either visited the Americas or lived there. Because Native Americans were kind of looked on as almost mythical in their "stoic" manliness. But if you read European stories from before the colonial age; you'll see that men are not as adverse to public displays of emotion.

I myself kind of side with the Native Americans; but I'm not knocking anyone who doesn't as being unmanly since that's not true. To me manliness is more about doing what you need to do and being strong mentally.

Of course as a Christian I already agree with compassion and caring. But I think true manliness is going to bring those things out. By the way I'm not saying I'm the manliness person myself. It's more of a goal or ideal. I think we live in a soft age of decadence so more manliness is required to counteract the decline of virtue as we slide into an abyss of selfish over-indulgence and greed.

 

[The Hammer]

I don't think they're perfect but making men weaker through brow beating and hen pecking (feminist tactics) it's not a good idea. It's going to result in disaster in my opinion.

So you show your emotions. I mean if you read the Illiad, Achilles and other apparent paragons of manliness just cry in public for whatever reason they feel like at the moment. Other manly characters in the Bible for example also cry openly. So that's not necessarily unmanly. Possibly, it became associated with unmanliness during the 1600s when Europeans came in contact with Native Americans. In Native American culture it was unmanly to cry in many tribes. So of course that idea started being adopted by Europeans who either visited the Americas or lived there. Because Native Americans were kind of looked on as almost mythical in their "stoic" manliness. But if you read European stories from before the colonial age; you'll see that men are not as adverse to public displays of emotion.

I myself kind of side with the Native Americans; but I'm not knocking anyone who doesn't as being unmanly since that's not true. To me manliness is more about doing what you need to do and being strong mentally.

Of course as a Christian I already agree with compassion and caring. But I think true manliness is going to bring those things out. By the way I'm not saying I'm the manliness person myself. It's more of a goal or ideal. I think we live in a soft age of decadence so more manliness is required to counteract the decline of virtue as we slide into an abyss of selfish over-indulgence and greed.

And the issue is that society doesn't agree with you.

Manliness is aggression, anger, brow beating, and being unemotional.

As someone who has been raised over the last 20 years this is the norm.

 

[74x12]

And the issue is that society doesn't agree with you.

Manliness is aggression, anger, brow beating, and being unemotional.

As someone who has been raised over the last 20 years this is the norm.

That's brutishness rather than manliness. I don't think it is manly. That has been perpetuated on society by bad role models. Young men need good role models. Unfortunately they have turned to music industry and hollywood where they aren't finding very many good examples.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wasn't suggesting any resignation. I really have no idea what you're getting at.

Toxic masculinity is a set of negative traits. I thought the whole point of your thread was for you to argue that those negative traits come as a package deal with positive traits... no?

When you argue that fighting toxic masculinity turns men into "cowards," what you're implying is that we can't do anything about the traits that make up toxic masculinity - e.g. misogyny and refusing to go to the doctor - without undermining traits like bravery.

And what I'm saying is that this comes across as an excuse for not dealing with toxic masculinity.

 

[Stevicus]

Toxic masculinity is a set of negative traits. I thought the whole point of your thread was for you to argue that those negative traits come as a package deal with positive traits... no?

When you argue that fighting toxic masculinity turns men into "cowards," what you're implying is that we can't do anything about the traits that make up toxic masculinity - e.g. misogyny and refusing to go to the doctor - without undermining traits like bravery.

And what I'm saying is that this comes across as an excuse for not dealing with toxic masculinity.

No, not necessarily. Human beings as a whole come as a "package deal," but it's a fair question to ask which specific traits are positive or negative. We can certainly deal with toxic masculinity, although that has become a bit of a loaded term these days. It's another fair question to ask whether we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Have we gone too far, or not far enough?

Instead of trying to constantly analyze what I write and finding creative ways of interpreting it, why don't you just take the chip off your shoulder and tell me your actual thoughts on this matter?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, not necessarily. Human beings as a whole come as a "package deal," but it's a fair question to ask which specific traits are positive or negative. We can certainly deal with toxic masculinity, although that has become a bit of a loaded term these days. It's another fair question to ask whether we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Have we gone too far, or not far enough?

Instead of trying to constantly analyze what I write and finding creative ways of interpreting it, why don't you just take the chip off your shoulder and tell me your actual thoughts on this matter?

What you call "constantly analyzing what I write and finding creative ways of interpreting it" is me doing my best to figure out a way to appreciate your point of view.

I already know my own view; I'm in this thread trying to figure out why someone would hold your view. It seems obviously wrong to me, but apparently it makes sense to you, or you wouldn't hold it. I'm interested in figuring out the reasons for this difference in opinion.

But you want my actual thoughts? I think your assessment completely backward.

"Masculinity" isn't about behaving like an action hero. What you're attributing to "cowardice" caused by too much focus on toxic masculinity, I see as completely in line with toxic masculinity itself.

I mean, in this case, we have a sheriff who:

- disregarded his training because he thought he knew better.

- stuck to his initial position even when there was clear evidence it was wrong.

- refused to defer to people around him who were better equipped to assess the situation.

All of this is textbook toxic masculinity. So is the ultimate root cause of what happened: a young man using violence as an outlet for anger instead of expressing himself in a non-harmful way.

... so it would be easy for me to dismiss you as clearly wrong, but I've chosen to try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you may have good reasons for your position... but I'm struggling to see what those good reasons could be and you aren't helping.

 

[Stevicus]

What you call "constantly analyzing what I write and finding creative ways of interpreting it" is me doing my best to figure out a way to appreciate your point of view.

I already know my own view; I'm in this thread trying to figure out why someone would hold your view. It seems obviously wrong to me, but apparently it makes sense to you, or you wouldn't hold it. I'm interested in figuring out the reasons for this difference in opinion.

But you want my actual thoughts? I think your assessment completely backward.

"Masculinity" isn't about behaving like an action hero. What you're attributing to "cowardice" caused by too much focus on toxic masculinity, I see as completely in line with toxic masculinity itself.

I mean, in this case, we have a sheriff who:

- disregarded his training because he thought he knew better.

- stuck to his initial position even when there was clear evidence it was wrong.

- refused to defer to people around him who were better equipped to assess the situation.

All of this is textbook toxic masculinity. So is the ultimate root cause of what happened: a young man using violence as an outlet for anger instead of expressing himself in a non-harmful way.

... so it would be easy for me to dismiss you as clearly wrong, but I've chosen to try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you may have good reasons for your position... but I'm struggling to see what those good reasons could be and you aren't helping.

To be honest, I don't really have a firm, resolute "view" on this subject, so your attempt to try to understand why I would "hold a view," which you somehow believe that I'm holding, would be rather pointless.

I would say that this is more a matter of just sounding out ideas, not making a proposition for a debate just so you can sit there and declare me to be "wrong" without offering much of substance yourself.