Current Events > Masculinity

(+) Yeah! (+)

I mean of course it's "just your observation" that's why it has no business being touted as a dictionary definition l m f a o wake up son
---

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

So, you just agree with a dictionary without actual research into the matter?
Here's a few dictionary definitions that I don't agree with:

Cool, but doesn't refute what I posted.

Feel free to back up your definition(s) with actual sources. Until then, I'll assume you're merely pulling a UR

The first definition and the example are contradictions. You can find men who are not handsome, muscled etc but the definition presupposes that those are masculine "traits" despite reality.
---

rikasa posted...

I mean of course it's "just your observation" that's why it has no business being touted as a dictionary definition l m f a o wake up son

You don't have to agree with me if you don't want. It really is of no concern.
---

Anti-245 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

That's an odd definition. Most people refer to that as "the patriarchy," iirc. What lead you to defining it that way? And if I may ask, what word do you use to describe behavior commonly associated with men?

Those are just gender roles, usually socially enforced by society at large.

And? That doesn't preclude masculinity from referring to behaviors (and traits, I forgot to mention that originally) that some society commonly associates with men. I'm still curious how you arrived at your definition, because that's a very uncommon usage.

I suppose you could use whatever terms you want to to describe behaviors but I feel you are looking into this society as if it remains neutral, which is I believe you agree with masculinity being as simple as just gender roles.

You're using an uncommon definition for a word, and then judging my views through your uncommon definition. My view of masculinity as a term tells you nothing about any other view I have.

And again, why do you define masculinity the way that you do?

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

masculinity is definitely more conceptual than ideological: we see things in the world and classify them as being masculine or non-masculine. concepts make sense of experiences; at some level, ideology is supposed to have a degree of predictive power, and masculinity doesn't afford that. i would agree that you can say slogans like "if you work hard, you can make it" are masculine at some level, but there are more robust ideologies that already exist and incorporate the logic used in the example, so you don't need to used the word masculinity to explain things like that at an ideological level.
---

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

So, you just agree with a dictionary without actual research into the matter?
Here's a few dictionary definitions that I don't agree with:

Cool, but doesn't refute what I posted.

Feel free to back up your definition(s) with actual sources. Until then, I'll assume you're merely pulling a UR

The first definition and the example are contradictions. You can find men who are not handsome, muscled etc but the definition presupposes that those are masculine "traits" despite reality.

Those are traits that are associated in common usage with masculinity.

That's the thing about words: we define them through common usage.
---

Anti-245 posted...

rikasa posted...

I mean of course it's "just your observation" that's why it has no business being touted as a dictionary definition l m f a o wake up son

You don't have to agree with me if you don't want. It really is of no concern.

our imagined disagreement has nothing to do w/ the objective definition

we'd be discussing our subjective opinion on the objective definition

you needed to hear this. this is an awful foundation for your arguments and it will pervade and undermine every single one until you understand what you've done wrong
---

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism, to me, refers just to a lack of conviction to God, but these days it encompasses much more than that. It's become somewhat of a reactionary movement within society against certain religious extremism. It usually goes hand in hand with imperial beliefs about the United States and disdain for marginalized communities.

We have a phrase for that: militant atheism

Anti-245 posted...

White is much more than a skin color. It's an ideology that usually reinforces itself through social pressure among european Americans. It too acts as a justification of atrocities at home and abroad when it comes to non-whites. It's companion, in my opinion, would be blackness with which society grants those that it seems as ills racially.

So white exceptionalism?

Anti-245 posted...

Science is, to me, an effort to improve knowledge of the natural world but I would caution against using terms like observation and experimentation strictly. Plenty of scientific ideas remain theoretical at the moment but they're just as important as the experiments and observations.

The scientific method is based around falsifiability. Hypotheses have to be able to make predictions through experiments and observations in order to become theories.

As much as you ridiculed me for going to the dictionary, I'd recommend opening one once in a while. You'll find it easier to express your ideas if you have the vocabulary necessary to do so

Yeah, most atheists who make claims under my definition don't consider themselves as militant so I don't know why I should either.

White exceptionalism is something more specific than whiteness itself.

Sure, it does. I'm not sure what you're getting at here anyway. It has nothing to do with what I said. I also don't know why you're being hostile either.
---

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

So, you just agree with a dictionary without actual research into the matter?
Here's a few dictionary definitions that I don't agree with:

Cool, but doesn't refute what I posted.

Feel free to back up your definition(s) with actual sources. Until then, I'll assume you're merely pulling a UR

The first definition and the example are contradictions. You can find men who are not handsome, muscled etc but the definition presupposes that those are masculine "traits" despite reality.

Those are traits that are associated in common usage with masculinity.

That's the thing about words: we define them through common usage.

Well, they're wrong as I've explained. Doesn't really matter if they're common or not tbh.
---

rikasa posted...

Anti-245 posted...

rikasa posted...

I mean of course it's "just your observation" that's why it has no business being touted as a dictionary definition l m f a o wake up son

You don't have to agree with me if you don't want. It really is of no concern.

our imagined disagreement has nothing to do w/ the objective definition

we'd be discussing our subjective opinion on the objective definition

you needed to hear this. this is an awful foundation for your arguments and it will pervade and undermine every single one until you understand what you've done wrong

An objective definition? Really now. Who decided it was objective. Collective, sure but I wouldn't say objective.
---

Anti-245 posted...

Yeah, most atheists who make claims under my definition don't consider themselves as militant so I don't know why I should either.

"Most white people don't consider themselves privileged, so why should I?"

Anti-245 posted...

White exceptionalism is something more specific than whiteness itself.

What you described is white exceptionalism.

Anti-245 posted...

Sure, it does. I'm not sure what you're getting at here anyway. It has nothing to do with what I said. I also don't know why you're being hostile either.

Fair enough about the hostility.
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

masculinity is definitely more conceptual than ideological: we see things in the world and classify them as being masculine or non-masculine. concepts make sense of experiences; at some level, ideology is supposed to have a degree of predictive power, and masculinity doesn't afford that. i would agree that you can say slogans like "if you work hard, you can make it" are masculine at some level, but there are more robust ideologies that already exist and incorporate the logic used in the example, so you don't need to used the word masculinity to explain things like that at an ideological level.

What term would you use?
---

then you're just eliminating the word "objective" from the lexicon despite it having many uses. maybe you should realize that if your personal definition of "objective" cannot be met, no one else is using that definition either. it's semantics. it's 98 IQ. you'll grow out of it or die stupid
---

Anti-245 posted...

Well, they're wrong as I've explained. Doesn't really matter if they're common or not tbh.

They're wrong, correct. But that's how they will continue to be defined until common usage shifts. This is slowly taking place, true, but it'll definitely take time until that happens fully.
---

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Yeah, most atheists who make claims under my definition don't consider themselves as militant so I don't know why I should either.

"Most white people don't consider themselves privileged, so why should I?"

Anti-245 posted...

White exceptionalism is something more specific than whiteness itself.

What you described is white exceptionalism.

Anti-245 posted...

Sure, it does. I'm not sure what you're getting at here anyway. It has nothing to do with what I said. I also don't know why you're being hostile either.

Fair enough about the hostility.

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.
---

rikasa posted...

then you're just eliminating the word "objective" from the lexicon despite it having many uses. maybe you should realize that if your personal definition of "objective" cannot be met, no one else is using that definition either. it's semantics. it's 98 IQ. you'll grow out of it or die stupid

So now we're using outdated metrics like iq? Are we really going here? What's your definition of objective?
---

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.

Yet militant atheists and their sense of "persecution" are very similar to militant white-privelege deniers and their sense of "persecution"
---

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.

Yet militant atheists and their sense of "persecution" are very similar to militant white-privelege deniers and their sense of "persecution"

Atheist have a history of persecution socially in this country. Whites do not.
---

Here's another study about gender.

Scientific research shows gender is not just a social construct
https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct/

"Despite this empirical truth, researchers who study the biological basis of gender often face political pushback. Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that gender is not purely a social construct, says Todd, who notes that her work has faced very critical attention. Theres a political preferenceespecially on the leftTodd believes, for gender to be only a reflection of social factors and so entirely malleable."

And there lies the problem. No matter how much research is done, some people refuse to accept it because it doesn't align with their politically correct beliefs. The truth is painful to leftists.

Gender is only a partial social construct, not complete. The other part is nature. It starts with nature and society develop roles on top of what was provided by nature.
---

Anti-245 posted...

rikasa posted...

then you're just eliminating the word "objective" from the lexicon despite it having many uses. maybe you should realize that if your personal definition of "objective" cannot be met, no one else is using that definition either. it's semantics. it's 98 IQ. you'll grow out of it or die stupid

So now we're using outdated metrics like iq? Are we really going here? What's your definition of objective?

i gave you 2 options
---

Anti-245 posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

masculinity is definitely more conceptual than ideological: we see things in the world and classify them as being masculine or non-masculine. concepts make sense of experiences; at some level, ideology is supposed to have a degree of predictive power, and masculinity doesn't afford that. i would agree that you can say slogans like "if you work hard, you can make it" are masculine at some level, but there are more robust ideologies that already exist and incorporate the logic used in the example, so you don't need to used the word masculinity to explain things like that at an ideological level.

What term would you use?

i was actually just thinking about what i said, and i did make a mistake. concepts have predictive power to the extent that the concept of a square allows us to predict that a square has four sides, etc. so in that way masculinity could be an ideology, i guess. ideology is, roughly, a system of concepts that point to hypothetical imperatives.

so, i guess i actually agree with you. can you point to a foundation of masculinity?
---

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.

Yet militant atheists and their sense of "persecution" are very similar to militant white-privelege deniers and their sense of "persecution"

Atheist have a history of persecution socially in this country. Whites do not.

I find that very hard to believe
---

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.

Yet militant atheists and their sense of "persecution" are very similar to militant white-privelege deniers and their sense of "persecution"

Atheist have a history of persecution socially in this country. Whites do not.

I find that very hard to believe

It might not be, for example, as violent as other groups(it's definately not as big as anti muslim bigotry) but social stigma does still exist for atheists.
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Anti-245 posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Masculinity is an ideology of patriarchal societies that generally justifies the advantages that men have over non-men systemically. It maintains its power through constant propaganda throughout the society similarly, but not exactly, to whiteness with race.

masculinity is definitely more conceptual than ideological: we see things in the world and classify them as being masculine or non-masculine. concepts make sense of experiences; at some level, ideology is supposed to have a degree of predictive power, and masculinity doesn't afford that. i would agree that you can say slogans like "if you work hard, you can make it" are masculine at some level, but there are more robust ideologies that already exist and incorporate the logic used in the example, so you don't need to used the word masculinity to explain things like that at an ideological level.

What term would you use?

i was actually just thinking about what i said, and i did make a mistake. concepts have predictive power to the extent that the concept of a square allows us to predict that a square has four sides, etc. so in that way masculinity could be an ideology, i guess. ideology is, roughly, a system of concepts that point to hypothetical imperatives.

so, i guess i actually agree with you. can you point to a foundation of masculinity?

Ah, the foundation. That is a good question. I've been thinking about this myself lately but have contradicting thoughts so it's hard to pin down.
---

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.

Yet militant atheists and their sense of "persecution" are very similar to militant white-privelege deniers and their sense of "persecution"

Atheist have a history of persecution socially in this country. Whites do not.

I find that very hard to believe

It might not be, for example, as violent as other groups(it's definately not as big as anti muslim bigotry) but social stigma does still exist for atheists.

Social stigma =\= persecution

Also I just realised I spelt "privilege" wrong. Apologies
---

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

Atheism and whiteness are two very different things so that's a false equivalence.

Yet militant atheists and their sense of "persecution" are very similar to militant white-privelege deniers and their sense of "persecution"

Atheist have a history of persecution socially in this country. Whites do not.

I find that very hard to believe

It might not be, for example, as violent as other groups(it's definately not as big as anti muslim bigotry) but social stigma does still exist for atheists.

Social stigma =\= persecution

Also I just realised I spelt "privilege" wrong. Apologies

I suppose you're right in a certain sense because then we could go on about definitions of persecution and whatnot. But I'd argue that atheists do face negatives that whites do not, especially given the founding of America.
---

... the foundation is hormonal, what the fuck am I reading
---

Anti-245 posted...

Ah, the foundation. That is a good question. I've been thinking about this myself lately but have contradicting thoughts so it's hard to pin down

ideologies seem to be rooted in theories of human nature: you can see it in communism (malleable nature), capitalism (rational actors), realism (competition as default), idealism (co-operation as default), totalitarianism (domination)

masculinity as ideology would have to have it's own theory of human nature, but it seems ridiculous to put one forward, because when you try to point to something, it usually already exists within a different ideology.
---

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

So, you just agree with a dictionary without actual research into the matter?
Here's a few dictionary definitions that I don't agree with:

Cool, but doesn't refute what I posted.

Feel free to back up your definition(s) with actual sources. Until then, I'll assume you're merely pulling a UR

I gotta say, I'm a little disappointed that someone who is so ostensibly into pesticides practicing science as you are would fall back on a dictionary definition. Masculinity is quite a well explored concept, and you should be well aware that words can refer to different, or less/more specific things depending on the context. When you're just dumping a dictionary definition and using it as some sort of absolute truth, you're almost on Mal_Fet levels of intellectual dishonesty.
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Clearly a lot of self-brainwashing going on for obvious reasons. No matter how much you deny the laws of nature

Hahahahahahahaha you had me taking you seriously for a sec there.

CiIantro posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Clearly a lot of self-brainwashing going on for obvious reasons. No matter how much you deny the laws of nature

Hahahahahahahaha you had me taking you seriously for a sec there.

If it makes you feel any better, I never took you seriously. The truth obviously doesn't matter to you as much as your political correctness.
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

If it makes you feel any better, I never took you seriously.

3edgy5me

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

CiIantro posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Clearly a lot of self-brainwashing going on for obvious reasons. No matter how much you deny the laws of nature

Hahahahahahahaha you had me taking you seriously for a sec there.

If it makes you feel any better, I never took you seriously. The truth obviously doesn't matter to you as much as your political correctness.

I don't find your responses convincing. It seems you have a hidden aggression to leftism and "political correctness".
---

CiIantro posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

Masculinity and femininity are not social constructs.

Explain to me why some cultures (particularly tribal indigenous) didn't have it? Biological sex is part of nature--the way the sexes are expected to act is made up by society. There is nothing "natural" about pink being a "feminine" color.

they did have it. if youre talking about amazons and shit, they were masculine. masculinity isnt restricted to men

and yeah pink used to be for males. I dont see your point here though
---

this is a weird topic in general. the premise doesnt make sense. Just because something isnt needed doesnt mean you have to get rid of it.
---

scar the 1 posted...

teepan95 posted...

Anti-245 posted...

So, you just agree with a dictionary without actual research into the matter?
Here's a few dictionary definitions that I don't agree with:

Cool, but doesn't refute what I posted.

Feel free to back up your definition(s) with actual sources. Until then, I'll assume you're merely pulling a UR

I gotta say, I'm a little disappointed that someone who is so ostensibly into pesticides practicing science as you are would fall back on a dictionary definition. Masculinity is quite a well explored concept, and you should be well aware that words can refer to different, or less/more specific things depending on the context. When you're just dumping a dictionary definition and using it as some sort of absolute truth, you're almost on Mal_Fet levels of intellectual dishonesty.

I wasn't necessarily asking for a dictionary definition from him, just one "corroborated" so to speak. Had it been from a textbook/journal on the subject, I would have been satisfied.
---

multiple languages would be screwed if we dropped masculinity
---

we need it so not every male turns out like gamefaqs poster.
---

teepan95 posted...

I wasn't necessarily asking for a dictionary definition from him, just one "corroborated" so to speak. Had it been from a textbook/journal on the subject, I would have been satisfied.

I'm not saying you were asking for a dictionary definition, you pulled one out to make some sort of point
---

the answer tends to be 'because women expect it in their romantic partners' and 'men expect it in their platonic friends.' deciding that something has no use does not mean other people automatically cease to expect it--it just means that you will not be getting what you want in your pursuit of romantic partners.

if you have a partner and friend group who does not expect masculinity from you, there's no reason to embrace any aspect of it that you do not personally enjoy. many men enjoy some aspects of masculinity, and there's no reason to "do away" with things you enjoy.

just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it is logical or wise to abandon it outright, unless you are happy to live outside society. if you are not, you have to understand that when you and society come to an impasse, it doesn't stop for you.

you're not captain america: when you say "No, you move" it does: right over top of you.
---

dictionary definitions are inadequate when discussing concepts as broad as masculinity
---

sexual dimorphism is an evolutionary adaptation
---

This is why I can't take liberals seriously.

You're actually THIS dense. Sex is not a social construct. Gender roles that have existed since recorded history and probably further back than that are not social constructs.

Many things on this planet exist solely as a means of sexual attraction. Beards on men are one such thing as is deeper voices. Conversely men find the higher voices of women attractive and boobs which are literally pointless(they could like most other creatures get bigger during breast feeding and shrink back to nothing after that but they don't)

Liberals don't just get to rewrite thousands of years of biology because "muh feelings" and we need to stop tolerating this crap.

kayoticdreamz posted...

This is why I can't take liberals seriously.

You're actually THIS dense. Sex is not a social construct. Gender roles that have existed since recorded history and probably further back than that are not social constructs.

Many things on this planet exist solely as a means of sexual attraction. Beards on men are one such thing as is deeper voices. Conversely men find the higher voices of women attractive and boobs which are literally pointless(they could like most other creatures get bigger during breast feeding and shrink back to nothing after that but they don't)

Liberals don't just get to rewrite thousands of years of biology because "muh feelings" and we need to stop tolerating this crap.

I am not a liberal.
---

Word semantics where there is no dialogue but just speaking at people at each other to argue about word defintions is so high school

scar the 1 posted...

teepan95 posted...

I wasn't necessarily asking for a dictionary definition from him, just one "corroborated" so to speak. Had it been from a textbook/journal on the subject, I would have been satisfied.

I'm not saying you were asking for a dictionary definition, you pulled one out to make some sort of point

To make the point that we can't define words as we see fit. There has to be some precedent based on common usage (imo)
---

teepan95 posted...

scar the 1 posted...

teepan95 posted...

I wasn't necessarily asking for a dictionary definition from him, just one "corroborated" so to speak. Had it been from a textbook/journal on the subject, I would have been satisfied.

I'm not saying you were asking for a dictionary definition, you pulled one out to make some sort of point

To make the point that we can't define words as we see fit. There has to be some precedent based on common usage (imo)

And again, using a dictionary definition (by nature very general) for a word when the context is very specific is intellectually dishonest. You could even be so lazy as to hit up Wikipedia for a cursory, referenced overview. I expect better from you fam
---

scar the 1 posted...

EnragedSlith posted...

Because thats how babies are made.

I don't wanna be all ad hominemmy, but you make it sound like you don't know a lot about sex

I dont know how Im supposed to dispute your dumb comment without sounding even more like a jerk. I have a lot of experience and it might be what Im best at.
---

EnragedSlith posted...

scar the 1 posted...

EnragedSlith posted...

Because thats how babies are made.

I don't wanna be all ad hominemmy, but you make it sound like you don't know a lot about sex

I dont know how Im supposed to dispute your dumb comment without sounding even more like a jerk. I have a lot of experience and it might be what Im best at.

And yet you think babies are made with masculinity
---

Without it we get the crumbling of society, thanks SJWs