Are Republicans Insecure About Their Masculinity?

[Danny Deck]

I think you could also look at this as a reaction to the Left for a long time only talking about "toxic masculinity." Since we're so polarized (at least online), the Right embraced everything about masculinity especially the stuff branded as "toxic." So you get voices like Andrew Tate with a following despite that fact that when I've unfortunately seen his stuff, nothing about it presents a positive view of masculinity at all. 

But the Left didn't really have a vision for what masculinity in the 21st century seemingly beyond embrace your feminine side. 

There are books like Of Boys and Men by Richard Reeves that discuss the issues that are facing men, so I think how men succeed in the modern world is a real question. I don't think the man-o-sphere stuff is correct, but it's the loudest voice out there. I wish all sides would consider the question more constructively.

[Scouts Honor]

the left wants men to take over for women

that could be their vision of it

[mspart]

Yes we see it happening all the time.  They win Woman of the year, Beauty pagents, etc.  Face it, men are just better at being women than women are.   It is now proven.    They make faster runners, stronger weightlifters, faster swimmers etc.   Men are just better at being women.  

mspart

[Danny Deck]

https://thedispatch.com/article/masculinity-in-an-age-of-individualism/

[Scouts Honor]

this is masculinity

 

[Danny Deck]

I don't know, that seems bad.

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 8/20/2024 at 3:22 PM, Bigbrog said:

LOL...why do you think I am all worked up...because I called you out on your b.s.??  Get some thicker skin dude.

What if someone was to do the exact same thing about democrat voters??  How many names would you and your ilk (RL/TPTD/UB) call that person...I bet a lot those names would end with 'ist" or "ism".  And the point I am making is both would be, like yours is, very stupid!!

 

Its funny that you make that comparison. One observation is that members of group 'A' tend to fall behind authoritarian leader-types, those traditionally being beckons of warmth and compassion for all of humanity and never lead to wars, genocides, or other similar atrocities based on those people being part of a group that group 'A' just so happen to not like at the time(insert every political or religious based genocide past and present, they always punch down, I wonder why that is?).

Your counter is to imply that the members of group 'B'(hold opposing political opinions from group 'A') would call group 'A' names for pointing out similar observations which you failed to include. Keeping in mind you didn't address the observations from group 'A' in the original post. Just to question why someone would type this out and then refer to it is B.S. (very mindful and demure)

Everything you've done and typed would indicate you are worked up to some extent or otherwise you would not find the need to address it at all if untrue. Seeing as you haven't denied to veracity of the claim just that its B.S. it seems to reason that you agree but are unable/unwilling to offer reasons. 

I'll offer some: conservative people, overwhelmingly, are religious. We are social creatures that need/thrive in community. So this group has grown up being taught by their community to not question authority. Be it a priest, a parent, or a government leader. Don't call out embarrassing/inconvenient things like inaccuracies in information be it the bible(there are tons), the stereotypes that your parents teach you, or why you should fear this group of people based on the politics of the day.

If you listen to or watch any atheist content you will hear similar stories of questioning and/or coming out of religion. In that it is incredibly difficult to do something if it risks isolating you from the group/community you have built up around you(which some religions threaten to do to someone that questions the faith, funny how that works). So go-along to get-along is simply easier than upending everything you have. Lets carry that over into politics. Holding similar opinions to those in your community, either outwardly or not is simply easier than swimming against the current and a lot less dangerous considering today's(and lets be real forever's) violent political atmosphere. That's why fascists tend to be so 'popular' they offer simple solutions to the problems of the day which typically hinges on whoever group 'A' happens to not like at the time. Once they get into power they turn everyone against each other so as to root out or prevent any opposition because no one knows who to trust. That's not freedom. 

One group of people, has a much higher rate of disowning family members(or simply killing people) for being gay, lesbian, trans, pro-choice, pro-education, atheist, or just the wrong kind of theist. So rather than address the obvious truths in the post you're worried that one side will call you names? 

[Bigbrog]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Its funny that you make that comparison. One observation is that members of group 'A' tend to fall behind authoritarian leader-types, those traditionally being beckons of warmth and compassion for all of humanity and never lead to wars, genocides, or other similar atrocities based on those people being part of a group that group 'A' just so happen to not like at the time(insert every political or religious based genocide past and present, they always punch down, I wonder why that is?).

Your counter is to imply that the members of group 'B'(hold opposing political opinions from group 'A') would call group 'A' names for pointing out similar observations which you failed to include. Keeping in mind you didn't address the observations from group 'A' in the original post. Just to question why someone would type this out and then refer to it is B.S. (very mindful and demure)

Everything you've done and typed would indicate you are worked up to some extent or otherwise you would not find the need to address it at all if untrue. Seeing as you haven't denied to veracity of the claim just that its B.S. it seems to reason that you agree but are unable/unwilling to offer reasons. 

I'll offer some: conservative people, overwhelmingly, are religious. We are social creatures that need/thrive in community. So this group has grown up being taught by their community to not question authority. Be it a priest, a parent, or a government leader. Don't call out embarrassing/inconvenient things like inaccuracies in information be it the bible(there are tons), the stereotypes that your parents teach you, or why you should fear this group of people based on the politics of the day.

If you listen to or watch any atheist content you will hear similar stories of questioning and/or coming out of religion. In that it is incredibly difficult to do something if it risks isolating you from the group/community you have built up around you(which some religions threaten to do to someone that questions the faith, funny how that works). So go-along to get-along is simply easier than upending everything you have. Lets carry that over into politics. Holding similar opinions to those in your community, either outwardly or not is simply easier than swimming against the current and a lot less dangerous considering today's(and lets be real forever's) violent political atmosphere. That's why fascists tend to be so 'popular' they offer simple solutions to the problems of the day which typically hinges on whoever group 'A' happens to not like at the time. Once they get into power they turn everyone against each other so as to root out or prevent any opposition because no one knows who to trust. That's not freedom. 

One group of people, has a much higher rate of disowning family members(or simply killing people) for being gay, lesbian, trans, pro-choice, pro-education, atheist, or just the wrong kind of theist. So rather than address the obvious truths in the post you're worried that one side will call you names? 

  What cracks me up more than anything is you took the time to write all of that!  

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 8/21/2024 at 10:30 AM, Danny Deck said:

I think you could also look at this as a reaction to the Left for a long time only talking about "toxic masculinity." Since we're so polarized (at least online), the Right embraced everything about masculinity especially the stuff branded as "toxic." So you get voices like Andrew Tate with a following despite that fact that when I've unfortunately seen his stuff, nothing about it presents a positive view of masculinity at all. 

But the Left didn't really have a vision for what masculinity in the 21st century seemingly beyond embrace your feminine side. 

There are books like Of Boys and Men by Richard Reeves that discuss the issues that are facing men, so I think how men succeed in the modern world is a real question. I don't think the man-o-sphere stuff is correct, but it's the loudest voice out there. I wish all sides would consider the question more constructively.

Great post. I agree with a lot of it. Thank you. 

Your second paragraph tho. That is the vision I think. Seeing things from another's perspective. Challenging those that try to portray the Manly Man that we now see as toxic to society. Has it and will it continue to ruffle feathers? Sure. Making meaningful change across the whole spectrum will be difficult and there will be push back. Especially from those who can make a living pushing back. Once that opportunity is done you'll see things happen a lot faster and for the better, I feel. Will it ever go away? No. There will always be some that find justification/validation doing societally unhelpful ways. Sometimes those are good. They challenge conceptions that have outgrown their usefulness and lead to change and others just rage at the dying of the light. 

I agree, more constructive. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 8/21/2024 at 10:47 AM, Scouts Honor said:

the left wants men to take over for women

that could be their vision of it

Not sure what you mean by that. Care to clarify? 

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Great post. I agree with a lot of it. Thank you. 

Your second paragraph tho. That is the vision I think. Seeing things from another's perspective. Challenging those that try to portray the Manly Man that we now see as toxic to society. Has it and will it continue to ruffle feathers? Sure. Making meaningful change across the whole spectrum will be difficult and there will be push back. Especially from those who can make a living pushing back. Once that opportunity is done you'll see things happen a lot faster and for the better, I feel. Will it ever go away? No. There will always be some that find justification/validation doing societally unhelpful ways. Sometimes those are good. They challenge conceptions that have outgrown their usefulness and lead to change and others just rage at the dying of the light. 

I agree, more constructive. 

I get a kick out of posts like this...you literally didn't say anything in your post and provided zero substance.  You just posted emotional statements.  You say sweeping generalizations and don't actual say what anything is while making those comments...ex. "you'll see things happen a lot faster and for the better"...you have failed to mention what is going to happen faster and what will be better...so what needs to happen and what will be better??  And this doozy of a sentence "They challenge conceptions that have outgrown their usefulness and lead to change and others just rage at the dying of the light"....ummm What the???  

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

rage at the dying of the light

It’s a famous poem…. By Dylan Thomas where a son wants his father to fight and stay strong. 

[Bigbrog]

22 minutes ago, Caveira said:

It’s a famous poem…. By Dylan Thomas where a son wants his father to fight and stay strong. 

Huh...never heard of it...guess I am not a literary guy either...I was and am a science guy

[Caveira]

I’m a math / computer science guy but I have it semi memorized from that fantastic movie back to school.  I think he (2ptTakedown) is implying that type of behavior is extra toxic masculinity.  But who knows.   Still a good movie tho.  
 

  

[WrestlingRasta]

5 hours ago, Caveira said:

I’m a math / computer science guy but I have it semi memorized from that fantastic movie back to school.  I think he (2ptTakedown) is implying that type of behavior is extra toxic masculinity.  But who knows.   Still a good movie tho.  
 

  

Excellent movie 

[Scouts Honor]

19 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Not sure what you mean by that. Care to clarify? 

ever heard of the bud light guy dylan?

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 8/29/2024 at 2:05 PM, Bigbrog said:

  What cracks me up more than anything is you took the time to write all of that!  

Glad I could help. 

That you are unable or unwilling to address any points makes me feel like I am on to something.

Thanks. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 8/29/2024 at 2:16 PM, Bigbrog said:

I get a kick out of posts like this...you literally didn't say anything in your post and provided zero substance.  You just posted emotional statements.  You say sweeping generalizations and don't actual say what anything is while making those comments...ex. "you'll see things happen a lot faster and for the better"...you have failed to mention what is going to happen faster and what will be better...so what needs to happen and what will be better??  And this doozy of a sentence "They challenge conceptions that have outgrown their usefulness and lead to change and others just rage at the dying of the light"....ummm What the???  

You could just say, 'Hey, I don't get it. Can you go into more detail about...(insert example here)?' But your first instinct was to ridicule my post. Do you not see yourself as a cliche of a bully in this situation? I challenge your idea(not even sure what idea it was because you failed to include it in your emotional outburst) and your best reaction is to be afraid and try to demean me. Very scientific of you, btw. Trying to convince others to not take me seriously. While you, yourself, are unable or unwilling to simply ask for clarification. Something I've done several times in the last few threads and do regularly. You don't always have to portray yourself as strong and tough, ya know that right? You can say, 'I don't know or don't get it'? It doesn't make you weak or dumb. Science people tend to not have as much knowledge about things outside of their science field. Its ok to ask. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 8/21/2024 at 10:47 AM, Scouts Honor said:

the left wants men to take over for women

that could be their vision of it

 

On 8/29/2024 at 2:11 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

Not sure what you mean by that. Care to clarify? 

 

On 8/30/2024 at 9:31 AM, Scouts Honor said:

ever heard of the bud light guy dylan?

Yes. I was proud that bud light did that. Rather disappointed, yet unsurprised, at how those on the 'right' reacted to it. 

How does the advertising campaign, in any way, prove your point about the 'left'?

[Danny Deck]

On 8/29/2024 at 1:09 PM, ThreePointTakedown said:

Great post. I agree with a lot of it. Thank you. 

Your second paragraph tho. That is the vision I think. Seeing things from another's perspective. Challenging those that try to portray the Manly Man that we now see as toxic to society. Has it and will it continue to ruffle feathers? Sure. Making meaningful change across the whole spectrum will be difficult and there will be push back. Especially from those who can make a living pushing back. Once that opportunity is done you'll see things happen a lot faster and for the better, I feel. Will it ever go away? No. There will always be some that find justification/validation doing societally unhelpful ways. Sometimes those are good. They challenge conceptions that have outgrown their usefulness and lead to change and others just rage at the dying of the light. 

I agree, more constructive. 

I think there is lots of room for reframing some things into masculine language that would be helpful. 

What I see from my women friends and co-workers are complaints about their husbands/partners not doing enough work around the house, helping with child rearing, etc. I think this is one area where things have changed a lot recently and old paradigms about the divison of labor at home doesn't make sense. Lots of couples have equally demanding jobs now, and yet there is still often the expectation that the woman will do the bulk of the household chores. 

Even if someone wants to frame themself in the traditional masculine terms as leader and provider in a household, well, a leader and a provider steps up and helps where it is needed to make sure all tasks are completed. Even if those tasks are "women's work." 

I think there is a move from younger men to be better at this, but there is so much learned helplessness. I listen to the Split Zone Duo podcast and on mailbag episodes at the end they'll often answer general life questions, and they frequently get questions about how to help their wives when they have a newborn. The host always says it isn't that hard, you should know what all chores always need to be done. There is almost certainly a load of clothes you can do, or dishes you can clean. Even in traditional masculine terms, you should take the initiative and get things done without being told to by your partner. 

So I agree this is changing in younger age groups, but I think it could change more quickly, and for the better with language that did more to meet people where they are and in terms they're more comfortable with. 

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

 

Yes. I was proud that bud light did that. Rather disappointed, yet unsurprised, at how those on the 'right' reacted to it. 

How does the advertising campaign, in any way, prove your point about the 'left'?

TPT on the board being proud to replace women with men

[Scouts Honor]

the left is "ALL IN" on 

'trans' women being women... are they not?

so yes... the left is all in on replacing women with men

[Bigbrog]

4 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

You could just say, 'Hey, I don't get it. Can you go into more detail about...(insert example here)?' But your first instinct was to ridicule my post. Do you not see yourself as a cliche of a bully in this situation? I challenge your idea(not even sure what idea it was because you failed to include it in your emotional outburst) and your best reaction is to be afraid and try to demean me. Very scientific of you, btw. Trying to convince others to not take me seriously. While you, yourself, are unable or unwilling to simply ask for clarification. Something I've done several times in the last few threads and do regularly. You don't always have to portray yourself as strong and tough, ya know that right? You can say, 'I don't know or don't get it'? It doesn't make you weak or dumb. Science people tend to not have as much knowledge about things outside of their science field. Its ok to ask. 

Hey dum dum...you lecture people on admitting they don't get it... yet...YOU don't get it.  It's okay...you aren't as smart as you think you are.  YOU need to challenge your ideas and get away from Collage campus's indoctrination and experience real life...most people aren't victims, and no one is trying to oppress anyone...once you realize that your life will be much more happy

[wrestlingguy]

14 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

TPT on the board being proud to replace women with men

I need a puke emoji. Catering to the mentally Ill doesn't help them realize they need serious help.

[Offthemat]

4 hours ago, wrestlingguy said:

I need a puke emoji. Catering to the mentally Ill doesn't help them realize they need serious help.

Exactly.  Participating in their psychosis is not empathetic, it’s deranged.