Do Men and Boys Need Re-education?

[Costa Fierro]

Well, I wouldn't knock the rainbow of spectrum approach of masculinity as non-beneficial in and of itself.

Why does there need to be a rainbow spectrum for masculinity?

It is a rather good model to keep in mind because masculinity is defined in so many different ways.

Masculinity isn't like LGBT or autism. You can't just throw it on a spectrum and expect it to be considered legitimate.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, I wouldn't knock the rainbow of spectrum approach of masculinity as non-beneficial in and of itself.

Why does there need to be a rainbow spectrum for masculinity?

Why is your definition of masculinity more authoritative than mine if, say, my way of being masculine is more reserved than yours?

[Costa Fierro]

Why is your definition of masculinity more authoritative than mine if, say, my way of being masculine is more reserved than yours?

I don't have a definition. I work with what society says is masculine and what isn't.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why is your definition of masculinity more authoritative than mine if, say, my way of being masculine is more reserved than yours?

I don't have a definition. I work with what society says is masculine and what isn't.

And what does society say is masculine, according to you?

Because where I come from, being masculine might mean something completely different from what you think masculine is. So, you know, difference in cultures does make a difference

This is why pegging one, and only one, society's expectations to masculinity to all men is rather inconvenient. As a religiously raised Latino, I was raised with different expectations on how to be masculine than, perhaps, your typical New Zealander was raised. So your society's expectations of masculinity might seem to me either entirely absurd, entirely useless, or entirely inconsequential to my life.

So to presuppose that just because I am a guy we will see each other eye-to-eye on what masculinity actually is is fallacious. It presupposes I do agree with your cultural expectations, which I probably do not as someone who was raised in a different culture and in fact we may very well agree on very few things due to our particular backgrounds, and in those things we agree on we might have different reasons to think the one thing we agree on is a good thing.

[Costa Fierro]

And what does society say is masculine, according to you?

It's not according to me. It's according to what society says. Being a man in New Zealand would mean being strong, unemotional, a lot of the times unintellectual and prone to violence. Being handy, as in being able to work with tools, fix things and be useful is also what men are supposed to be. It's akin to the Australian bushman or the American frontiersman. In that men have to be confident and dominant also fall into that, because weak and submissive men are not seen as "men".

Because where I come from, being masculine might mean something completely different from what you think masculine is. So, you know, difference in cultures does make a difference

I wouldn't say there'd be this substantial difference but there would be differences. What you're suggesting is that masculinity differs on an individual level.

This is why pegging one, and only one, society's expectations to masculinity to all men is rather inconvenient. As a religiously raised Latino, I was raised with different expectations on how to be masculine than, perhaps, your typical New Zealander was raised. So your society's expectations of masculinity might seem to me either entirely absurd, entirely useless, or entirely inconsequential to my life.

I never said that it was my society that was right. What I said was that individual ideas of what masculinity is are absurd because it's not something that can just be thrown on the spectrum.

[Kubra]

And what does society say is masculine, according to you?

It's not according to me. It's according to what society says. Being a man in New Zealand would mean being strong, unemotional, a lot of the times unintellectual and prone to violence. Being handy, as in being able to work with tools, fix things and be useful is also what men are supposed to be. It's akin to the Australian bushman or the American frontiersman. In that men have to be confident and dominant also fall into that, because weak and submissive men are not seen as "men".

Because where I come from, being masculine might mean something completely different from what you think masculine is. So, you know, difference in cultures does make a difference

I wouldn't say there'd be this substantial difference but there would be differences. What you're suggesting is that masculinity differs on an individual level.

This is why pegging one, and only one, society's expectations to masculinity to all men is rather inconvenient. As a religiously raised Latino, I was raised with different expectations on how to be masculine than, perhaps, your typical New Zealander was raised. So your society's expectations of masculinity might seem to me either entirely absurd, entirely useless, or entirely inconsequential to my life.

I never said that it was my society that was right. What I said was that individual ideas of what masculinity is are absurd because it's not something that can just be thrown on the spectrum.

What would a roman consider masculine

[Costa Fierro]

What would a roman consider masculine

Probably serving in the Roman legions.

[Kubra]

What would a roman consider masculine

Probably serving in the Roman legions.

what's the good of a standard of masculinity if any pleb (literal pleb) can attain it?
I can bench 2pl8, how many Romans could do that?

[Chestaan]

There are courses for women like this all over the world, why not have them for men to? The number of people who are butthurt at the 'attack on masculinity' is fucking shameful. I say this as a man.

There are courses like this for women? Can you provide some examples please. Genuinely interested to see what they are like.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And what does society say is masculine, according to you?

It's not according to me. It's according to what society says. Being a man in New Zealand would mean being strong, unemotional, a lot of the times unintellectual and prone to violence. Being handy, as in being able to work with tools, fix things and be useful is also what men are supposed to be. It's akin to the Australian bushman or the American frontiersman. In that men have to be confident and dominant also fall into that, because weak and submissive men are not seen as "men".

This would be the biggest difference between our cultures, to be frank.

Like I said, I am a Latino raised in a religious, in addition to that I was raised in an upper-middle class household in two different cultures. My way of looking at weakness, submission, and the concepts of violence and being intelligent are very different from New Zealanders, and very different from many points of view, to be frank.

In a lot of ways, yes, your particular individual background is going to define what "masculine" means to you, and that mostly first starts with your father or some other male figure. But to say that masculinity is not defined at the individual level would be frankly absurd, considering that everyone is raised in a different way, and so everyone has a different conception of what the idea of masculinity actually is that differs either slightly, or enormously, from "society's standard".

[The Gray Castles]

Seeing as how all of culture and society tells women not to be victims, despite that being wholly illogical, I find it entirely appropriate and necessary to tell men not to be aggressors. I'm not saying that men are inherently violent or anything, but our media and culture raises then to be entirely ignorant of what consent actually is or means. Men are raised to believe that women are prizes to be won, that they are entitled to "get the girl."

Excuse me but where have you been since Woodstock? The horse you speak of was dead and flogged to jello by the time Disney got to it, and THAT was 25 years ago.

[Venerable Bede]

Secularism teaches that morality is relative and a matter of personal preference, so you can't really have a clear teaching on ethics.

Well... I hate gays and am a atheist..... And pretty conervative, considering.... I think you'd think thats pretty moral, eh?

No, I do not. No political views make you moral, and hating people is wrong in the extreme, it would be more moral if yourself were a flaming, active homosexual, than for you to hate them.

[Venerable Bede]

Secularism teaches that morality is relative and a matter of personal preference, so you can't really have a clear teaching on ethics.

So in other words, you don't think it's possible to explain that stealing, rape, murder, fraud, lying, perjury, are wrong? Probably not, according to your signature, but ethics can have any basis; Christianity or another religious faith certainly help keep the origins of ethical thought simple, but it is possible for someone to lead an ethical life according to the standards of their society without reference to deity.

I think you can, but it is like explaining a particular sort of art is ugly--according to the standards of society.

[New Edom]

So in other words, you don't think it's possible to explain that stealing, rape, murder, fraud, lying, perjury, are wrong? Probably not, according to your signature, but ethics can have any basis; Christianity or another religious faith certainly help keep the origins of ethical thought simple, but it is possible for someone to lead an ethical life according to the standards of their society without reference to deity.

I think you can, but it is like explaining a particular sort of art is ugly--according to the standards of society.

In terms of ethics? How so? I mean generally speaking murder for instance is taking a life in an unlawful way, right? That's hardly a subjective notion if you want people to be law abiding.

[Venerable Bede]

I think you can, but it is like explaining a particular sort of art is ugly--according to the standards of society.

In terms of ethics? How so? I mean generally speaking murder for instance is taking a life in an unlawful way, right? That's hardly a subjective notion if you want people to be law abiding.

That's law rather than ethics, but yes, you can teach that objectively. "This is the law," although that is different from saying, "this is moral."