Measure of a Man

[Sundiata]

"Manliness is saintliness"... what a way to elevate the male sex to almost godlike levels. By portraying men as saints, it automatically places women as everlasting penitents cowering at the aspect of their heavenly countenance.

The same goes for females, womanliness is also saintliness. However, that should go without saying. Men are the subject of this thread.

[Albrenia]

It doesn't sound scientific, it is scientific since males have a male sex chromosome, thus making them males. Anything else needed to make a man a man is extra. If you were to put two 100% unknown men with in the vastness of space in which they're both alive, how would you determine which one's manlier? And if it sounds smug then so be it. I feel smug in my opinion.

There's a vested interest in maleness seeming more relative than it is. What began as protestantism became modernism (the synthesis of all heresies); and ultimately culminates in atheism. Our virtues will see us through.

Joooooin usssss...

[The Free Joy State]

"Manliness is saintliness"... what a way to elevate the male sex to almost godlike levels. By portraying men as saints, it automatically places women as everlasting penitents cowering at the aspect of their heavenly countenance.

The same goes for females, womanliness is also saintliness.

But only your notion of "womanliness" (and if you repudiate any of this characterisation, I apologise in advance; although they are all highly rightist views of proper female behaviour, and you have talked of highly rightist views since your arrival, including wanting to ban pre-marital sex, divorce and all abortion and believing women need "correcting" -- the leap isn't hard to make)... The smiling, praying, babies-popping-out-every-ten-months, never-swearing, never-drinking, not teaching or preaching or wearing pants, meek and reverent, pure and busy at home, subject to their husbands: meekly placing her hand beneath her lord and husband's foot (in token of which duty, if he please, her hand is ready may it do him ease).

As with your notion of manliness -- it puts everyone in such tight constraining boxes that probably don't suit them.

[New haven america]

"Manliness is saintliness"... what a way to elevate the male sex to almost godlike levels. By portraying men as saints, it automatically places women as everlasting penitents cowering at the aspect of their heavenly countenance.

The same goes for females, womanliness is also saintliness. However, that should go without saying. Men are the subject of this thread.

Except your idea of "Womanliness" is them being quiet smiling devout Catholic girls who spend most of their time popping out kids, catering to the whims of their emotionally distant husbands, and taking beatings corrections from their husbands for stepping out of line.

[Sundiata]

The same goes for females, womanliness is also saintliness.

But only your notion of "womanliness" (and if you repudiate any of this characterisation, I apologise in advance; although they are all highly rightist views of proper female behaviour, and you have talked of highly rightist views since your arrival, including wanting to ban pre-marital sex, divorce and all abortion and believing women need "correcting" -- the leap isn't hard to make)... The smiling, praying, babies-popping-out-every-ten-months, never-swearing, never-drinking, not teaching or preaching or wearing pants, meek and reverent, pure and busy at home, subject to their husbands: meekly placing her hand beneath her lord and husband's foot (in token of which duty, if he please, her hand is ready may it do him ease).

As with your notion of manliness -- it puts everyone in such tight constraining boxes that probably don't suit them.

I would like to repudiate this inaccurate characterization.

Catholic Social Teaching is not "rightist," it actually tends to be fairly centrist or apolitical. For evidence of this, I would like to refer you to our numerous teachings on economics and service to the poor. Like men, women are called to community.

Nowhere have I said that women shouldn't drink, teach, wear pants, or work. While men and women are obviously not the same, men and women absolutely should have equal rights and protections under the law.

[The Free Joy State]

But only your notion of "womanliness" (and if you repudiate any of this characterisation, I apologise in advance; although they are all highly rightist views of proper female behaviour, and you have talked of highly rightist views since your arrival, including wanting to ban pre-marital sex, divorce and all abortion and believing women need "correcting" -- the leap isn't hard to make)... The smiling, praying, babies-popping-out-every-ten-months, never-swearing, never-drinking, not teaching or preaching or wearing pants, meek and reverent, pure and busy at home, subject to their husbands: meekly placing her hand beneath her lord and husband's foot (in token of which duty, if he please, her hand is ready may it do him ease).

As with your notion of manliness -- it puts everyone in such tight constraining boxes that probably don't suit them.

I would like to repudiate this inaccurate characterization.

Catholic Social Teaching is not "rightist," it actually tends to be fairly centrist or apolitical. For evidence of this, I would like to refer you to our numerous teachings on economics and service to the poor. Like men, women are called to community.

Nowhere have I said that women shouldn't drink, teach, wear pants, or work. While men and women are obviously not the same, men and women absolutely should have equal rights and protections under the law.

On the mischaracterisation on drinking, teaching, wearing pants, I apologise. Working wasn't explicitly mentioned.

I notice you didn't repudiate "popping out babies every ten months", "meek and reverent" or "subject to their husband", (which are considered fairly socially right views -- as are no abortion, no divorce, no premarital sex and that women should be subject to correction, all of which you did say -- one can be socially right and economically left, incidentally)... but I guess that's another story.

Still, bringing it back to the men, it's still archaic to put either gender in boxes when individuals are as unique as snowflakes.

[Shamhnan Insir]

The measure of a man is how swiftly he will lie himself or his fine jacket across a puddle or source of other filth in order for a lady to cross it without dirtying her shoes or getting wet feet.

[The Alma Mater]

The measure of a man is how swiftly he will lie himself or his fine jacket across a puddle or source of other filth in order for a lady to cross it without dirtying her shoes or getting wet feet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X18s_8gKd8

[Sundiata]

I notice you didn't repudiate "popping out babies every ten months", "meek and reverent" or "subject to their husband", (which are considered fairly socially right views -- one can be socially right and economically left, incidentally)... but I guess that's another story.

Those aren't accurate either but that should, again, go without saying.

Still, bringing it back to the men, it's still archaic to put either gender in boxes when individuals are as unique as snowflakes.

While an old-fashioned idea, being virtuous is not wrong at all. It not easy for anyone. People's preferences are unique but their needs are very much the same.

[The Free Joy State]

Still, bringing it back to the men, it's still archaic to put either gender in boxes when individuals are as unique as snowflakes.

While old-fashioned, being virtuous is not wrong at all. It not easy for anyone. People's preferences are unique but their needs are very much the same.

Actually, no, people's needs are not remotely the same. Not once you get beyond the body's basics like food, air, water, sleep.

What people need to be happy varies substantially.

What one man needs to be happy is a successful career. What another man needs to be happy is a wife and two kids (and for him to be able to raise those kids himself). What a third man needs is a husband and a Labrador. What a fourth man needs -- if he were to have his ideal -- is a mountain cave where he could live in tranquillity and pursue a life of meditation among nature.

One hundred men would probably have one hundred different measures of happiness. One hundred women, likewise (but this thread is about men).

That's why talk about "one true man" is redundant, IMO.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The measure of a man is how swiftly he will lie himself or his fine jacket across a puddle or source of other filth in order for a lady to cross it without dirtying her shoes or getting wet feet.

Good,English gentleman

[Sundiata]

While old-fashioned, being virtuous is not wrong at all. It not easy for anyone. People's preferences are unique but their needs are very much the same.

Actually, no, people's needs are not remotely the same. Not once you get beyond the body's basics like food, air, water, sleep.

What people need to be happy varies substantially.

What one man needs to be happy is a successful career. What another man needs to be happy is a wife and two kids (and for him to be able to raise those kids himself). What a third man needs is a husband and a Labrador. What a fourth man needs -- if he were to have his ideal -- is a mountain cave where he could live in tranquillity and pursue a life of meditation among nature.

The basics are the same but so is the most abstract need. Again, we all have our individual preferences in certain regards but when these preferences are disordered, they steer us away from our highest need. Happiness isn't simply an emotion, but ultimately a state of being that transcends worldly joy. While someone can feel happy in this life, they'll never be ultimately happy.

Our wants are different but our needs are the same.

[The Free Joy State]

Actually, no, people's needs are not remotely the same. Not once you get beyond the body's basics like food, air, water, sleep.

What people need to be happy varies substantially.

What one man needs to be happy is a successful career. What another man needs to be happy is a wife and two kids (and for him to be able to raise those kids himself). What a third man needs is a husband and a Labrador. What a fourth man needs -- if he were to have his ideal -- is a mountain cave where he could live in tranquillity and pursue a life of meditation among nature.

The basics are the same but so is the most abstract need. Again, we all have our individual preferences in certain regards but when these preferences are disordered, they steer us away from our highest need. Happiness isn't simply an emotion, but ultimately a state of being that transcends worldly joy. While someone can feel happy in this life, they'll never be ultimately happy.

No-one will ever be happy when they are being forced in a box that pleases someone else.

Or, to quote Goldie Hawn (IIRC): "The only thing that will make you happy is to be happy with who you are, not who people think you are."

[The Alma Mater]

The basics are the same but so is the most abstract need. Again, we all have our individual preferences in certain regards but when these preferences are disordered, they steer us away from our highest need. Happiness isn't simply an emotion, but ultimately a state of being that transcends worldly joy. While someone can feel happy in this life, they'll never be ultimately happy.

No-one will ever be happy when they are being forced in a box that pleases someone else.

Or, to quote Goldie Hawn (IIRC): "The only thing that will make you happy is to be happy with who you are, not who people think you are."

Sundiata is entirely focussed on the afterlife. He even indicated that when he gets a wife he will not truly love her, since only God can be truly loved.

[The Free Joy State]

No-one will ever be happy when they are being forced in a box that pleases someone else.

Or, to quote Goldie Hawn (IIRC): "The only thing that will make you happy is to be happy with who you are, not who people think you are."

Sundiata is entirely focussed on the afterlife. He even indicated that when he gets a wife he will not truly love her, since only God can be truly loved.

I've read his posts.

But, while not an atheist (which probably surprises some posters), this thread is temporal so my remarks are restricted to the temporal.

(Although, just to take a tiny diversion on the spiritual, if God created us, He created all aspects of our personalities and natures, our desires and needs -- and if our personalities and desires and needs come from God, they cannot be a sin. That's my spiritual part done now.)

[The Blaatschapen]

I would like to repudiate this inaccurate characterization.

Catholic Social Teaching is not "rightist," it actually tends to be fairly centrist or apolitical. For evidence of this, I would like to refer you to our numerous teachings on economics and service to the poor. Like men, women are called to community.

Nowhere have I said that women shouldn't drink, teach, wear pants, or work. While men and women are obviously not the same, men and women absolutely should have equal rights and protections under the law.

On the mischaracterisation on drinking, teaching, wearing pants, I apologise. Working wasn't explicitly mentioned.

I notice you didn't repudiate "popping out babies every ten months", "meek and reverent" or "subject to their husband", (which are considered fairly socially right views -- as are no abortion, no divorce, no premarital sex and that women should be subject to correction, all of which you did say -- one can be socially right and economically left, incidentally)... but I guess that's another story.

Still, bringing it back to the men, it's still archaic to put either gender in boxes when individuals are as unique as snowflakes.

And just like snowflakes, they will suffer from global warming

[The Sladerstan]

No-one will ever be happy when they are being forced in a box that pleases someone else.

Or, to quote Goldie Hawn (IIRC): "The only thing that will make you happy is to be happy with who you are, not who people think you are."

Sundiata is entirely focussed on the afterlife. He even indicated that when he gets a wife he will not truly love her, since only God can be truly loved.

As am I, I look at life and think 'Everything is temporal, passing, I want to do something that will last forever'

But nowadays I'm a bit stressed and can't really focus, nor do I have the energy to do anything.

[Australian rePublic]

Being a man is all about being dominant, strong, and taking what is rightfully yours. A true man works hard, is heterosexual, owns a pickup truck, a large dog, drinks beer, owns guns, doesn't talk about feelings, lifts weights, eats red meat a lot, and smokes cigars.

At least, that is what many people say.

Many people? Name 10

[Shanghai industrial complex]

No-one will ever be happy when they are being forced in a box that pleases someone else.

Or, to quote Goldie Hawn (IIRC): "The only thing that will make you happy is to be happy with who you are, not who people think you are."

Sundiata is entirely focussed on the afterlife. He even indicated that when he gets a wife he will not truly love her, since only God can be truly loved.

WTF.....

[Sundiata]

Sundiata is entirely focussed on the afterlife. He even indicated that when he gets a wife he will not truly love her, since only God can be truly loved.

WTF.....

No, I said that the love of my wife should be oriented towards the love of God.

[The Huskar Social Union]

True man? Okay, someone who identifies as male, there you go.

Other than that you can be whatever the fuck you want and any notions of being a "true man" can fuck right off out the window.

[Rojava Free State]

It doesn't sound scientific, it is scientific since males have a male sex chromosome, thus making them males. Anything else needed to make a man a man is extra. If you were to put two 100% unknown men with in the vastness of space in which they're both alive, how would you determine which one's manlier? And if it sounds smug then so be it. I feel smug in my opinion.

There's a vested interest in maleness seeming more relative than it is. What began as protestantism became modernism (the synthesis of all heresies); and ultimately culminates in atheism. Our virtues will see us through.

So basically "catholicism is right, protestants are wrong."

[Sundiata]

There's a vested interest in maleness seeming more relative than it is. What began as protestantism became modernism (the synthesis of all heresies); and ultimately culminates in atheism. Our virtues will see us through.

So basically "catholicism is right, protestants are wrong."

Not just that, the ideas which led there eventually lead to atheism.

[Rojava Free State]

Being a man is all about being dominant, strong, and taking what is rightfully yours. A true man works hard, is heterosexual, owns a pickup truck, a large dog, drinks beer, owns guns, doesn't talk about feelings, lifts weights, eats red meat a lot, and smokes cigars.

At least, that is what many people say.

Many people? Name 10

Zach Matovski
Zane Rodriguez
D'Angelo Zitouna
Muayid Al-Omari
Matt Ciaramatero
George Feliciano
Adrian Vuksani
Anthony Fornari
Josh Gordon
Chris Ward

I just named ten people I know who do almost all those things (not all of them have a big truck or lift weights but the heterosexual part they all definitely agree on).

[Vistulange]

There's a vested interest in maleness seeming more relative than it is. What began as protestantism became modernism (the synthesis of all heresies); and ultimately culminates in atheism. Our virtues will see us through.

So basically "catholicism is right, protestants are wrong."

I mean, that's practically what any faith boils down to, except when there's syncretism involved.