/lit/ - Literature

Which society's conception of masculinity are you using? It's largely determined by material conditions dictating the optimum function of the male sex.

If by "dying out" you mean the male sex's social function is becoming less and less distinct from the function of the female sex's social function, then yes, I agree, but that's inevitable technology reaches a certain point and things like production and war can be achieved by both sexes with equal competency, and children receive more and more public upbringing as opposed to maternal upbringing.

>Is night time dying out?

0/10. All you get OP.

Masculinity is a social construct.

It's just an abstract rationalization. The passion for the sexes, however, will never die out. It will be rationalized differently in every age, however.

>>5934970

Masculinity is NOT a social construct. It is strictly tied to gender and natural gender roles.

The whole nihilistic era of "freedom of philosophical shit thoughts" is fallacious.

>>5934942
masculinity is overrated.

>>5934984
>human nature

>>5934984
it is a social construct in what it means to be masculine changes between cultures and time periods

>>5934984
What's your definition of masculinity?

It is true that "masculinity" is a complex social construct and encompasses a range of phenomena and problematizations of phenomena. But that doesn't mean you can't do a cultural history of it. Being a real scholar and not a dilettante piece of shit means acknowledging that recognizing that it's a social construct is not the end, it's the beginning.

The problem is just that you need to be ridiculously erudite to even tackle a small piece of it. There are two main reasons for this.

1. "Masculinity" is tangled up with almost every facet of history in the West. You can't do much analysis of it unless you really understand economics, human sexuality, political history, theology, and lots of other things.

2. You have to start with the Greeks because that's just the way Western cultural history works. This means that you are stuck with an incredibly long historical stretch to cover to get to the present day.

Foucault's History of Sexuality is a pretty good place to start for learning about these things.

In french

Histoire de la virilité
Alain Corbin, Jean-Jacques Courtine et Georges Vigarello (dir.), 3 t., Seuil, 2011, 38 € par tome.
T. I - l’invention de la virilité. De l’Antiquité aux Lumières, Georges Vigarello (dir.);
T. II - le triomphe de la virilité. Le XIXe siècle, Alain Corbin (dir.);
T. III - La Virilité en crise? XXe-XXIe siècle, Jean-Jacques Courtine (dir.).

>>5935006
Bullshit

>>5934960
>war at the same level for both genders

Okay bub

>>5934984
How agricultural can you get.

I wish Western society would experience a Hellenic reawakening so that Homeric gender roles and cultural principles become the norm. Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

>>5935028
You don't 'have' to start anywhere. There is such an incredibly large amount of information for any given time period, that this idea you should have a 'cosmopolitan' idea of the anthropological progress of humanity is puerile. Admittedly, however, The Histories is a must read.

People who take 'Start with the greeks' seriously are tards.

Tom Wolfe. This book.

>>5935042
this looks like a great read

any pdf available? i can force my way through french if necessary

>>5934984
I mostly agree. If one is to say masculinity, or many other things, is a social construct, then you must also acknowledge that there is something inherent that is being expressed through these social constructs. Masculinity may take on a few different forms depending on the time and society in which it belongs, but they all spring from the same soil, so to speak. I think to completely disregard things as social constructs is to ignore very important aspects of life.

Why would you need masculinity today? We're no longer at constant threat of war and military service in most developed countries is either limited or no longer compulsory. The manual labour sector of the economy is becoming smaller and smaller. Family as a patriarchal unit is dying.

It is kind of comical at times seeing all the sheltered, suit and tie dudes praising masculinity but their only contact with it is through the movies.

It's pointless trying to preserve customs that are no longer needed. You can force a revival through arts and culture, but that won't last.

while my heart beats, masculinity lives on. (le ebin, simply ebin)

also Hemingway.

gonna repost my list from another thread, Hemingway's all about:

war
>fighting for your country
boxing
>fighting for sport
hunting
>fighting animals
fishing
>fighting aquatic animals
bullfighting
>fighting in a cape
bar fights
>fighting drunks
drinking
>fighting yourself
romance
>fighting women

>>5935165
>fishing
>>fighting aquatic animals

that feel when you conquered the strong enemy

>>5935161
all you are doing is exposing your naivete. masculinity isn't about swinging an axe or a hammer. it's about being a man. masculinity means confidence, pride, bravery, leadership, honesty, ambition, comradeship, a strong work ethic, and a sense of duty.

if you don't understand how many forms masculinity can take that remain salient in modern society (and always will) then you have got a lot to learn. your father would be ashamed of you saying such things on the internet. life itself is, in many ways, a fight.

>>5935060
Yes, the more technology progresses, the more that will be the case. The more technology plays a part in war, the less important things like cardiovascular fitness and muscle ratio are important. Back when people wore lots of metal armor and rode horses and fought hand-to-hand, these things were at a premium; now they don't matter much at all, except in infantry, which is playing less and less of a function conflicts of serious duration. We have laser guided bombs, armored vehicles, etc. Guns don't require the muscle of a sword or a bow, they just require endurance to carry around and to move fast on foot, and the thing is that moving on foot over a long distance is even less important now, it's about moving on the foot within a conflict zone. This makes infantry combat a reasonable option for stronger women in a way it wasn't before, although it still demands a fortitude women are less capable of compared to the ratio of men, but even that will continue to change, troops will use little remote, you'll just run to a spot with cover and get your thing out of your backpack and set it down and remote control is like with a drone except for land. And eventually those will be so advanced that they will be able to be deployed far from the battlefield and controlled from there. That will take time, but time is all it's a matter of.

Meanwhile, even taking in the male's better capacity for warfare, most citizens are not soldiers like they once were, being a soldier is not part of the average male's life because training is much more vital than quantity was, and troops have to be supported because they cant plunder, and of our military only a fraction actually fights.

>>5935201
The old sophistry of the vague, copy-and-paste series of positive values being attributed to a dying set of customs in a last desperate attempt of saving it is an old one: religious fundamentalism was once about integrity, morals, family, devotion. Racial nationalism about pride, self-determination, virility.

This alone suggest how unnecessary said custom is: First of all, those we still need are never questioned. Second of all, reducing them to a grouping of slogans is itself a sign of how you're not interested in addressing it for what it is, because it wouldn't stand any real analysis.

"Masculinity" was the noblesse oblige of the working poor, and the fact we no longer find it relevant is something to be celebrated.

>your father would be ashamed of you saying such things on the internet. life itself is, in many ways, a fight.

And one of these fights is against old traditions, and the struggle to replace them by new ones.

The notion of masculinity nowadays is actually becoming annoying, because the romance of it outlasted its usefulness. Men who are not bound to the same conditions the "real men" of the past used to still see the real men celebrated in medium and arts everywhere, and feel the pressure and necessity of emulating them. And so they outsource the task to other spheres of life, and the subjugation of women, crime and violence rise as a result.

>>5935201
Good lord I hope you are trolling.

>>5934942

Plus "Civilization and its Discontents"

Mans primary advantage over women is not athleticism or strength but intelligence and drive.

>>5935272
Also greater balance of humours.

>>5935248
>>5935241
>we no longer find it relevant

the modern world was built by masculinity. who are you to wave it all aside as if you know better now, to treat it as some outmoded tool from a crude and uncultured yesterday? that a young man can be tricked into loathing his own sex so much is truly a tragedy. I've got nothing but pity for a man who has forsaken his masculinity. I can't resist some psychoanalysis here, and it's going to be condescending but only because I want to help you.

no doubt you feel resentment because your own personal experience of manhood hasn't thus far lived up to the virtues that I described, but it's not too late to make your escape from the opprobrium applied to men in the name of gender equality. instead of arguing any further I'll let us have our differences and simply implore you to try to get in touch with your masculinity. remember, it's not a competition. you've got the potential, we all do, you're not any different than any other man. it's waiting to be explored if you only set aside your toxic preconceptions about barbarians, untamed lust, violence and oppression. masculinity is simply the manifestation of your personal strength and potential as a man and it can become a hugely positive influence in your life if only you'll let it.

>>5935289
I'm a woman but thanks for the concern.

>>5935289
>who are you to wave it all aside as if you know better now
I'm an anonymous social reject wasting my new year on 4chan, just like you friend.

>>5935289
>the modern world was built by masculinity.

dropped

A professor who taught a class on masculinity integrated a lot of Faulkner into his curriculum and spoke about it fervently. Try him.

>>5934942
I guess you could say fight club relates to themes of loss masculinity in the modern world.

>>5935288
lol'd

>>5935289
>the modern world was built by masculinity.

The modern world was built by a lot of institutions and arrangements we now find outdated, so I see no pointing in mainting their values alive. Customs are meant fit a certain material conditions, and the conditions that demanded you to act like a Sergio Leone character are mostly gone. Maybe if you're still in a rural area in a country bordering Russia and gossip runs fast in your little shtetl there is some point in the stunt, but in most case there isn't.

You commit a mistake and somewhat a fallacy when you act like values and customs are self-evidently true and those who escape them are the one who must seek help. They must be analised and renewed from time to time, go through its own process of natural selection. Intuitively, most men already know that. You're far more out of touch with the "modern world" you describe than I am.

I don't "reject my sex" - which is a pretty lolsy statement - I only reject a certain social construct built around it that is no longer relevant. The modern gender-neutral economic and cultural demands are already enough for me, and I'm not going to bother becoming Mishima as well.

>>5935296
A professor who taught a class on masculinity was integrating on his curriculum Faulkner, known chauvinist

>before the class beings you must get on your knees and worship Hemingway!

At this moment a brave, patriotic, post-gender sociology student who had read 1500 pages of Foucault and Butler etc etc you guys see where I'm going

Sorry I kind of lost interested in writing this midway

>>5935289
>the modern world was built by masculinity.
The Western world was built by the Greeks (who are also responsible for the Renaissance and the Enlightenment by proxy), who are you to wave aside Greek customs and traditions? Have you propitiated the goddess of the hearth any time recently? Just who do you think you are?

HUBRIS
U
B
R
I
S

>>5935165
>Hemingway
>fighting for your country

U wot m8? Maybe in WW2, but he was technically just a reporter who went off the reservation.
He didn't get blown up for his country in WW1 though.

And his country decided to just sit on the sidelines and watch with a grin on their face during the Spanish Civil War, while he went off to report on that.

>>5935181
Marlin are pretty strong. Trout on the other hand...

>>5935272
Ergo, intelligence and drive are masculine traits, and, if you're inclined to believe the feminists ITT, are also old hat.

>>5935347
>masculinity is annoying
>[masculinity] is a social construct
>those [customs] we still need are never questioned

not only do you reject your sex, you're spectacularly dogmatic about it. I subscribe regular high intensity physical exercise to awaken your latent masculinity. you might call it unnecessary, obsolete outsourcing, but I call it satisfying a biological need. or is biology an outmoded custom, too? just be careful you don't spontaneously subjugate any women on your way home from the gym once your body discovers testosterone; judging by your portrayal of manhood ITT it must be a Hell of a drug! so potent, in fact, it might even cure your flagrant self-repression.

>>5935354
I enjoyed it anyway

>>5935393
prescribe*

>>5935393
>masculinity
>sex

>>5935393
>or is biology an outmoded custom, too?
Biology and socialization are two completely different things, as I've mentioned three times, to no coherent rebuttal.

And make any attempt of psychoanalysis you want, but for the love God don't start with the "do u even science?" shit like there's anything scientific about what you're saying.

>just be careful you don't spontaneously subjugate any women on your way home from the gym once your body discovers testosterone

haha it's funny because I said women can be subjugated by gender roles - clearly a misconception caused by a case of mass lack of masculinity in me and others today

I think this will be my last reply because honestly I can't be bothered anymore. Anything else you would like to say other than tips of how to awaken the viking inside us? Because in this last post it really started to feel like you're scratching the bottom of the barrel for material.

>>5935272
intelligence and drive
I don't know what place you come from, but in my country woman are as intelligent and work as hard as males.

>>5935417
man's primary advantage over women is being able to fool other men with bizarre, nonsensical abstractions

>>5935393
You're basically the male equivalent to the type of woman who reads women's magazines and astrology and wants to get in touch with her "inner goddess".

Do you know, back in the 1950's, when masculinity was big, exercise wasn't really even a thing? It didn't become a thing in the U.S. until well after masculinity started to decline. And nowadays, I see way more women exercising than men, women doing aerobics, women running, all sorts of shit. Men weightlift more, that's about it.

>>5935422
Men's primary advantage over women is being able to give her that D nice and hard, am I right fellas? Am I right???

>>5935430

>>5935240
>mentality in war isn't important
the only way technology will make war gender neutral is by complete robotization of the army

>>5935100
I have several podcasts of the authors explaining their work, but the books have not been digitalized...

This was interesting in how unapologetic it was in its criteria for what constituted Manhood. Basically, the exclusive status of Manhood has always and can only exist distinct from female influence despite postmodern attempts to erode said definition with rhetoric and a general disrespect of hierarchy. It takes the stance that the ethics of Masculinity have absolutely nothing to do with women (thus philosophically devaluing them) but instead reflect how men behave amongst each other in a manner that expresses their own practical worth and value to the team/tribe/squad.

>>5934942
>What are some good books on masculinity, or with themes of masculinity?
Judith Butler - Gender Trouble
>Is masculinity dying out?
Depends on your definition: is it a biological trait? Then no, it is here to stay? Is it just a social construct? Then, uh, maybe someday?
>ought we let it die out?
To the extent of it being a social construct, probably, and replace it with a more humane relation between men and their own bodies.

>>5934942
>Is masculinity dying out? If so, ought we let it die out?

Define masculinity. As far as I know, being an alpha male that needs to mark territory, fuck as much as he possibly can, and be successful in everyday life materially, is slowly dying out, yes.

Though, one could actually argue that women are getting more masculine, at least in the West. Men are opting out of society in greater numbers and women are graduating from colleges at a bigger rate than males are.

>>5935752
They're going to laugh at you for suggesting Butler, but props.

>>5935330
>I guess you could say fight club relates to themes of loss masculinity in the modern world.

it's about the absolute opposite of that
if he read that into it

>i think we found the closet gay trying to overcompensate for daddy

>>5935161
It's not a question of "needing". We don't need wisdom teeth and the appendix either but they are still with us. Masculinity, at its core, is biologically determined even if the way it is is expressed is culturally shaped and it will stay with us.

>>5935838
>Masculinity, at its core, is biologically determined even if the way it is is expressed is culturally shaped

How is this not a contradiction?

>>5935838
if you had to watch a beast being butchered in some country shed or cattle yard you would cry later that afternoon, in your bathroom, with a tap running and dabbing your eyes with three ply, printerd toilet paper

>>5935425
>exercise wasn't really even a thing
it was called physical labor which no one does these days, sittin' on their nergin asses

>>5935796
Women graduating from college means next to nothing. They only go to college so that they can find a rich man to latch onto.

>>5935865
>>>/r9k/

>>5935861
>nergin
thank you for reminding me that this word exists, my new years resolution will be to use it at least once a week

>>5935847
It's not. One merely precedes the other. e.g the ability of a mother to bond with her offspring is biologically determined (oxytocin release and all that). The way this ability to bond translates to the local concept of motherhood in a given society is culturally shaped.

>>5935865
Joking aside, it does say something about culture writ large, if females are the ones pushing the levers of civilization.

You are aware that men are increasingly anomied by society, and feel it better to play video games, read books, and in general eschew female contact especially and societal contact in general. This is a problem, and it is a problem that will not go away. So by all intents and purposes the historically clichéd masculine man, is dead.

>>5935881
>e.g the ability of a mother to bond with her offspring is biologically determined

No doubt, but is that really femininity? Men also bond with their children and have releases of oxytocin, yet you wouldn't call male bonding with his children for femininity would you?

>>5935888
I spoke only of motherhood, not feminity. Feminity and motherhood are separate concepts though they do overlap to an extent. The male concept would be paternity. Even though the underlying biological events are quite similar (if my memory is right the only differences are that men release less oxytocin and that it's not tied to lactation) society created to separate ways to express it depending on the sex.

>>5935913
>society created to separate ways to express it depending on the sex.

Exactly, which proves that gender and biological sex are not identical.

>>5935918
I never said they were.

>>5935918
This is correct. Anyone who doesn't think gender-based classifications are arbitrary and socially determined are idiots.

But the passion between the two sexes will never die. Some very important thinkers understood this as true. That you could, theoretically divert this passion from its true purpose, but that the two sexes will always feel drawn together in some way. Society is funny though, as the overall economy is stagnant or regressing, society organizes its gender classifications so there is some interference with these biological attractions, shifting the objective classification of genders to something less passionate towards each other. It really ties in a lot with the wealth of the society they live in, and the form of that wealth as well.

>>5935930
>I never said they were.

Yet you are determined to say that biology determines certain absolute factors about masculinity, while simultaneously saying it is expressed differently depending on culture and time.

That's how you play tennis without the net.

>>5935161
>Family as a patriarchal unit is dying.

With absolutely horrific social consequences, you should be ashamed of yourself for advocating just letting it get worse.

>>5935948
>With absolutely horrific social consequences

Not him, but such as?

>>5935933
>Anyone who doesn't think gender-based classifications are arbitrary and socially determined are idiots.

This is a non-sequitur. Though culturally expressed those classifications are still rooted in biology. In the case of paternity and maternity you may argue that the physiological processes involved are close enough that the large discrepancies between both concepts are unjustified. For other concepts (masculinity/femininity maybe?) the physiological differences may be large enough that having very different concepts between the sexes might make sense.

At best you can assert that gender-based classifications are -partly- arbitrary and socially determined.

>>5935941
I did say that and both assertions are correct.

>>5935240
Women are not physically capable of meeting the physical requirements for the infantry in all but a tiny number of cases. Infantry still do long range foot patrols with 100+ pounds of gear. There is a reason the physical requirements for women are laughably low compared to those for men and its a disgrace that lower requirements even exist.

Frankly I think anybody who is incapable of carrying a 180 pound guy in full combat gear to safety should be banned from even joining the army regardless of intended role unless its a job that will literally sit back home at a desk. Everyone from cooks to truck drivers to artillery crews can face combat from time to time.

>>5935347
>stunt

Masculinity is not a 'stunt', what are you talking about.

>>5935953
>I did say that and both assertions are correct.

No, both assertions are in contest with each other. If masculinity manifests as forced female genital mutilation in the Middle-East, but as a father grounding her daughter for underage drinking in the West, then masculinity is not an absolute, in any sense.

The main problem here is that people are talking in absolutes. They think it's all about social constructs or that it's all about biology when it's a mix of both.

>>5935857
Are you trolling? I have watched native guides cut up a pig with their machetes and I did not 'cry', I chatted with the guy turning the pig on the spit then sat down and had some pork for dinner with everyone else.

I have never understood this idea that people can only eat meat because they do not know where it comes from or how its made.

>>5935964
I never said masculinity is an absolute and the first example you gave is relevant to the concept of femininity in the middle East (or rather North/East Africa), not masculinity.

>>5935973
>I never said masculinity is an absolute

By saying something is biologically deterministic, is tacitly saying it is absolute and unavoidable.

>>5935985
I said "partly" arbitrary and "partly" determined.

>>5935296
>corn
>cobby
>chronicles

Or well i meant to say anyway. I guess my writing isn't clear enough. My bad.

honestly masculinity is only good in a machiavellian sense, to gain honor between plebs and to gain plebeian woman (all woman are plebeian).

you don't need to be masculine, you just have to pretend it when the situation calls for it.

>>5936002
Sounds like the modus operandi of a sociopath.

>>5936003

>implying not all masculine men start being masculine by pretending it first

you really think that those "masculine" people were born like that?

>>5935883
>You are aware that men are increasingly anomied by society, and feel it better to play video games, read books, and in general eschew female contact especially and societal contact in general. This is a problem, and it is a problem that will not go away. So by all intents and purposes the historically clichéd masculine man, is dead.

When people on 4chan talk about the meaning of masculinity, I always love to bring in Ancient Greek pederasty. Some Ancient Greek men would take young, pretty, beardless boys as lovers and fondle their genitals and fuck them in the ass; although pederasty was widely scorned, it was usually shameful not for the pederast (old man), but for the boy receiving it. The boy, temporarily, played the role of beautiful ephebe, but when he grew up, well, bad luck to him; he was forever a passive loser who had gotten fucked in the ass as a child.

Consider Achilles and Patroclus. Some scholars suggest it may have been a homosexual relationship, similar to a pederastical situation. Nonetheless, it's clear Achilles loves Patroclus more than any woman, except perhaps for his mother; he really only cares that Agamemnon took his consort, Briseis, away because of the dishonor done to him; it's never made explicit that he romantically loves her or even cares much about her except for the fact that she can fulfill a sexual need.

Odysseus, the hero of the other great Greek epic, certainly wishes to eschew female contact with Calypso and Circe. Yes, to be fair, he's married, but it still shows he's not a slave to his passions or easily seduced.

Finally, my ultimate hero, Diogenes, masturbating in a barrel apart from all society. GREEK conceptions alone (let alone other historical conceptions) of masculinity are much more nuanced than "fuck women, drink beer, be alpha as fuck"; in fact, this conception is even RIDICULED (and cruelly punished) in the story of the Odyssean suitors, who get brutally slaughtered and two of them (if they actually stuck Irus in the ship, which I'm not sure of) castrated in the end.

There's certainly the conception of the warrior, the statesman, the PUBLIC PERSON, which we think of as more typical masculinity, but there's also the poet, philosopher, or scholar who is apart and above from society, a la Socrates or Diogenes or Homer himself (who glorifies the poet above the priest, when Odysseus spares the former and not the latter when they both beseech him). I certainly don't mean this to justify anything, since there are also autistic weebs who try to be apart and above from society but aren't all that masculine, I just wanted to throw in some interesting trivia.

>>5936002
You are correct sir.

>>5936012
>you really think that those "masculine" people were born like that?

No, of course not. But I do not think masculinity is a mask of sanity that psychopathic people put on, in order to manipulate people. I think masculinity is a cultural construction, that people have or they do not, in varying degrees depending on time and context.

Though, I do not doubt that psychopathic and sociopathic people do, indeed feign normality to manipulate people, I don't think it has anything to do with masculinity.

>>5935952
The passion for the sexes is immutable, but gender based values are arbitrary. Do you see the distinction here? Wake up, will you?

People innately want to have sex with the opposite gender, but any character traits they have are completely 100% socially determined.

>>5936015
There's nothing here I disagree with, but I sincerely doubt that Japan had hikikomoris in the 5th century, so this new type of hermit activity that is gaining ground in Western society is something new, culturally speaking.

There has always been people who could not fit in, a minority of a minority, but it has never become a cultural and social issue to the extent that birth rates are literally killing a civilization.

>>5936015
I mostly agree except for the thing about the suitors. Ulysse reclaiming by force his woman and property is very masculine. The "fuck women, drink beer, be alpha as fuck" is, in my understanding, not part of traditional masculinity but of a lower form.

>>5936028
> any character traits they have are completely 100% socially determined.

But that's wrong. For example we know that aggressiveness is directly linked with testosterone levels.

>>5935292
And you think you're able to speak on Masculinity because?

>>5936033
>birth rates are literally killing a civilization
This is something, I believe, that naturally has to happen. Vico or Spengler (bear with me, here, I know the latter was an idiot, but he was onto something) had the right idea when talking about the naturally decline and renewing of civilizations. Japan, like any other civilization, has to fade into dust. Rome and Greece died out too, and how, I wonder? If it wasn't just declining birthrates, it was diaspora, interracial marriages, increasing deathrates. A far far far more frightening possibility would be a civilization that NEVER died out, since this would entail some Bravenewworldian/1984ish fuckery with genetics and population growth and control of every facet of everyone's lives. Let civilizations go to dust. The way I see this period of history for the West, it's similar to the Dionysian mystery cults in late Greece, when, blasphemously, some of the weak and the women of the populace began to follow these strange, mysterious cults of intoxication, seeking to liberate themselves … and speaking of Dionysus, his name, if I remember correctly (or one of his names, he has, like other Greek Gods, a few of them) means something like "false man", and he was often portrayed as very womanly and sensuous, and, moreover, according to one myth, raised as a girl to protect him from Hera's wrath. Again, conceptions of masculinity are very changeable, since civilizations themselves change.

>>5936034
When did I ever say Odysseus doing that was NOT masculine?

>>5936034
>>5936048
Ah, nevermind, nevermind, I see. I meant to say that the SUITORS were being ridiculed, not Odysseus. Odysseus killing them was seen as a rightful punishment.

>>5936044
It's more than a civilization dying. The white race itself is being replaced. Not one country of white people. Their entire sphere is being eradicated.

>>5936033
I disagree. We had actual hermits (Christian ones that is) and people also sometimes became monks to withdraw from the world. It peaked during times of great social decay, just like our time.

>>5936044
>A far far far more frightening possibility would be a civilization that NEVER died out, since this would entail some Bravenewworldian/1984ish fuckery with genetics and population growth and control of every facet of everyone's lives.

Maybe. But the end of civilizations are not beautiful, and will usually end in destruction and wars, which, if you are of an intellectual mind, are pointless to begin with.

>>5936060
How are wars pointless?
They are a test and challenge of honor, courage, and ambition.
Furthermore they are a objective-political fact of human existence. Men declare war on each other for valid and significant reasons; to call important political issues 'pointless' seems quite naive.

>>5936057
>It peaked during times of great social decay, just like our time.

So, the advent of the same thing in the West is the herald of it's end then.

>>5936036
One may also notice that, because of this biological factor, aggressiveness is universally associated with the concept of masculinity across world cultures (even in matrilocal cultures), no matter how varied this concept is on other points. Masculinity, just like femininity is biologically rooted and culturally shaped, so part-determined, part-arbitrary.

>>5936060
If it makes you feel any better, some great 'happening' isn't likely to happen in any of our lifetimes. Civilizations rarely just explode, they slowly decay. And we breathe the decay, everyday, without noticing it. In fact, you could say that except for a peak at the beginning, every person since the birth of civilization has been living in a declining society. Once you learn enough about cultures supposedly different from but really pretty much the same as your own, it gives you the ability to really look back from everything and see it for the joke it is.

>>5936070
If civilizations naturally destroy themselves, how is war not pointless?

>>5936070
g2b Ernst

>>5936071
What books could I read to learn more about the history of hermits?

>>5936074
>If it makes you feel any better

It doesn't, because I don't really care. I'll be dead long before the West has morphed into something else anyway.

>>5936076
I think you believe the point of war is to destroy the opposing civilization.
That is simply false.
The point of war is the success of a political objective.

>>5936077
You........You Too

>>5936087
>The point of war is the success of a political objective.
"In war, it doesn't matter who is right, but who is left"
-Winston Churchill

>>5936087
The point of Wars is always imperial
no exceptions

>>5936087
Yes, and so what? Does it matter today that Genghis Khan conquered the whole of Asia? No it doesn't, because his Empire no longer exists. It's economic, social, cultural and political value has been destroyed by the vagaries of time and space.

>>5936092
Churchill really isn't a substantial authority in the realm of the philosophic theory of war.
Nevertheless, you're using his quote in a disingenuous way.
That quote means that the moral implications of the war, whether it was 'just' or not, is ultimately decided upon by the victors, or that is, who is left.

>>5936055
It's not getting replaced. In absolute numbers it has probably never numbered that many people. What's happening is the coexistence with other people on the same territories. This will most likely result in a Brazil-like situation where a minority of whites at the top remains dominant culturally and socially. Great things can still be achieved. The Romans managed to maintain their supremacy even while being heavily outnumbered within their empire.

>>5936096
And what do you mean by 'imperial'?
On face value that does not seem to go against my claim that the point of war is always a political objective

>>5936096
What of civil war?

>>5936098
Yes it matters utterly.
The entire face of Asia was changed by the Mongols.
The Thriving Mid-East was brought to its knees because of pillaging.
The world would be a drastically different place if these wars did not happen.

You seem quite nihilistic. Almost to the point that you contend that nothing 'human' has any significance/meaning at all.

>>5936101
>That quote means that the moral implications of the war, whether it was 'just' or not, is ultimately decided upon by the victors, or that is, who is left.
But that's exactly the way I was interpreting the quote. I don't see how you could interpret it any other way.

Churchill was one of the most intelligent leaders any country has ever had. I think if anyone should have commented philosophically on war, it would be that man.

>>5934942
pride and prejudice by jane austen

women are retarded babies that you can legally fuck

so yes, people are becoming more babylike and dumb

>>5936105
That's not what happened to Canada. Rich Chinese, poor whites.

>>5936110
>You seem quite nihilistic. Almost to the point that you contend that nothing 'human' has any significance/meaning at all.

Clearly war loses it's meaning as a pursuit if 100 years down the line, or hell, even 10 years down the line(Iraq), it's political objectives where lost and you end up 5 trillion dollars more in debt.


>The entire face of Asia was changed by the Mongols.

So what? Again, borders are intrinsically bullshit anyway. Are you saying human nature was changed by Khan's imperialism? I don't think so.

>>5936108
Power over the country that fights it. Even if it isn't a secessionist issue.

>>5936112

>Churchill was one of the most intelligent leaders any country has ever had.

britbong pls go

>>5936112
But that's not what our debate is about.
The usage of the quote is therefore irrelevant to whether war is 'pointless' or not.

>>5936121
Because you lose a war, or it becomes a standstill does not mean the war was 'pointless'.

Yet again, it seems like you place no value in man's political, social, and cultural reality.
What I'm saying is that The Mongols changed all three of these fundamental human facets of life for almost the entire continent of Asia.
This would all be different for Asia if The Mongols had not existed.

the future is dickless craven nerd betas growing beards and getting xtra-chunky in lieu of having a backbone or any reason for living

>>5936140
It does not have to be that way.

>>5936134
>Yet again, it seems like you place no value in man's political, social, and cultural reality.

I put no value in imperialistic war, that's right.

>What I'm saying is that The Mongols changed all three of these fundamental human facets of life for almost the entire continent of Asia.
This would all be different for Asia if The Mongols had not existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_history

That's just pure speculation. You do not, and cannot possibly know what Asia would look like if Genghis Khan wasn't an imperialist.

only the emasculated think and speak constantly about masculinity, like frigid women talking about sex, and people who never make anything talking about "creativity"

>>5936121
'A' war is identical to the philosophic war proper.

The statement war is meaningless or pointless cannot be supported by evidence from a single war.

>>5936155
>frigid women talking about sex
Lmao as if

>>5936144
The guys you posted were mostly in favor or just letting things unroll and keeping to yourself. In fail to see how their ideas could change anything.

>>5936156
>The statement war is meaningless or pointless cannot be supported by evidence from a single war.

Agreed, but in lieu of the context of this discussion, namely that civilizations die whatever you do, warring seems pointless. It might not seem pointless as a contemporary political objective when you live in that space and time, but clearly it is pointless in the grand scheme of human history, as is everything you do as an individual.

Do you think anyone is going to remember you 500 years from now? No they are not. And nobody is going to remember a war either, they'll just know it happened some time long ago, for some arbitrary reason.

>>5936151
What is this imperialistic war you keep referring to? What are you defining imperial as?
How can you not place any value in the fundamental social facts of human existence? How can you have meaning in anything? What does meaning even mean for you? I am generally aghast.


No. I was not making speculative history. That would be to guess what Asia indeed 'would' look like. The statement that Asia would be different is historically and philosophically true. If Baghdad had not been burned to the ground then modern day Iraq would look different. That's a fact.

>>5936172
The question becomes then: What does Meaning mean in your perspective?

You are taking a radically nihilistic view.

>>5936096
Amazing post...very insightful.

>>5936173
see
>>5936172

>>5936156
*not Identical*

>>5935354
>not spelling it Hemmingway
One fucking job

>>5936178
>What does Meaning mean in your perspective?

Meaning is the language that mammalian primates use to justify their existence.

>>5934942
King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette

>>5934970
And so what if it is? It's an extremely useful social construct that has helped out the human species for millennia. It should continue to be studied and glorified.

>>5936184
You haven't answer a single one of my pertinent questions.
You are a nihilist. With meaningless rhetoric and empty phrases.
You look at human existence as devoid of any meaning or significance. In my perspective that leads to a hollow, and unfulfilling life.

>>5936172
This is retarded. We understand why most wars happened, no matter how long ago they happened. By your backwards logic we shouldn't have any fucking clue why Corinth and Sparta declared war on Athens in 431, yet that war continues to be one of the most studied in human history.

>>5936202
>We understand why most wars happened, no matter how long ago they happened.

I never said you couldn't understand why they happened. But clearly, it does matter to anyone today why Corinth and Sparta declared war on each other, except to the most devout student of history.

And why does the history student care?

I really wish there were more women on 4chan, just so they could put an end to all the circlejerking about Hollywood style masculinity

>>5936200
So in other words, you oppose my conclusions simply because it makes you feel bad.

Well, good for you. If that makes you sleep better, I don't mind. But it doesn't make me any less right.

>>5936209
How do you know they wouldn't propagate positive discussion of masculinity even further?

>>5936207
Lol, shut up. The Peloponnesian War is one of the most widely read-about wars in history, and you'd know that it is interesting to many people besides "the most devout students of history" if you weren't completely talking out of your ass.

The fact is, people 500 years from now, assuming anyone is still alive, will read about and understand World War I and II, the American Civil War, the Vietnam War, etc.

>>5936212
It doesn't matter what they'd say, their mere presence would make all those MRA/MGTOW/PUA/r9k/pol/tards uneasy and they wouldn't get away with all the circlejerking.

>>5936214
Yes. They probably will. But why will they? Why are they interested?

Are they going to learn from it and stop it from happening again or what? This seems doubtful.

>>5936216
Why does it seem doubtful? Humans haven't been engaged in a conflict the size of WWI or II since 1945 precisely because nations learned from those experiences and determined to set up a new world order that could ensure it wouldn't happen again.

>>5934987
but its masculine to like feminine girls

>>5936215
True. The only guys left to talk about it would be the actual men, who don't talk about it.

>>5936214
Like all the people today who know about the Anglo-Dutch wars?

Or, hell, who know anything in detail about the 30 Years War?

>>5936225
Since when do people not know about the 30 Years War? It's one of the defining moments in Western history and is taught as early as 9th grade.

As for the Anglo-Dutch wars, it wasn't a conflict comparable to most wars in history, though people certainly know about the colonial competition between England and Holland, so much so that slang originating in that period survives into the present.

>>5936209
Or you could just stop making baseless assumptions. Such as the one that this thread is about 'Hollywood' style anything.

>>5935357
Pretty kek, 7/10 (you got +2 for the HUBRIS thing).

>>5936218
>Humans haven't been engaged in a conflict the size of WWI or II since 1945 precisely because nations learned from those experiences and determined to set up a new world order that could ensure it wouldn't happen again.

And the weight and influence of that organization is dwindling every day. The fact is, that a sufficiently shitty economy, or something related can trigger the same thing all over again.

>>5934984
gender roles are a social construct

>>5936253
They're 100% natural but they're being eroded while human nature is unchangeable.

>>5936244
Not really. Nuclear weapons have made war between major powers a near-impossibility. I also don't see how it's "dwindling every day" when European border disputes have ended to the point that a federated EU is now a real possibility.

>>5935883
>You are aware that men are increasingly anomied by society, and feel it better to play video games, read books, and in general eschew female contact especially and societal contact in general.

There are men outside of 4chan you know. What you describe is more a consequence of our generation being forced to go through longer education for less job prospects and having to spend more time in daddy's home as a consequence.

It's much more an issue of economic and technological change than muh feminism, which is something people pay lip service to but that isn't as big as the internet would have you believe.

Gurren Lagann

>>5936268
>Not really. Nuclear weapons have made war between major powers a near-impossibility. I also don't see how it's "dwindling every day" when European border disputes have ended to the point that a federated EU is now a real possibility.

You put a lot of hope in the human species really. I guess I am the cynical asshole then.

Lets hope it all works out for you.

>>5936264

It's time to stop posting

>>5936277
Try reading into some international relations theory and military history.

>>5936272
>It's much more an issue of economic and technological change than muh feminism

If you even cared to read, you ridiculously ignorant cuntnugget, you would actually see no blame on feminism in that sentence at all.

But I guess the victim complex is so fucking huge with feminists that they even have to claim hurt when none was done.

>>5936280
No doubt nuclear weapons functions as a deterrent, but only if both parties have them.

Not having nuclear weapons did not help Japan during WW2.

>>5936124
I'm from fucking America, you idiot.

What I find interesting is that the so-called non-autists taunt anything from a discussion on masculinity, feminism or just postmodern ethics in general. As if they're beyond any of that and completely agree with the times as they are.

Funny, but that's just a man's thing to do, to protect the weak. Good you're staying true to manhood, but at least admit that something skewed when a discussion of any sort like this is going on.

>>5936128
Has it occurred to you I wasn't the person you were debating?

>>5936282
If you even cared to read, you ridiculously ignorant cuntnugget, you would actually see no claim that I'm a feminist in that post at all.

And if you even cared to understand, you preposterous idiotic dicklicker, you would actually see that the point of my post was precisely that it's not about feminism or about women's role in general. Women taking a larger place in the workforce is the consequence of a more general trend that also applies to men. That was my point you drooling assfucker of an incestuous shitbasket.

But I guess the superiority complex is so fucking huge with moron that they even have to rave about self-victimization when nothing of the sort was involved.


So, sorry mister haughty for using the word feminism, I should rather say "muh females are taking a larger roles in valorized social functions while men's prevalence in those roles is shrinking".

Faggot.

>>5936286
Retard britbong's child pls go.

>>5936287
Perhaps that's because I'm not a native speaker, but I don't see why you put "taunt" in you first sentence. That sentence doesn't make sense to me, as it is.

>>5936311
>Women taking a larger place in the workforce is the consequence of a more general trend that also applies to men.

I agree with everything you said apart from this. If society in general treats women, professionally better, academically better and socially better, this will invariably come at the expense of men.

Case in point: Custody laws, quotas etc.

By differentiating the male as a privileged class, society has made the law unequal for men, and this manifests structurally into social circles as a distaste for men in general, as can be seen in the idea that men are in general disposable.

>>5935417
Tell me the name of your country, I'd like to see this liberal utopia where men and women work in equal number from the most intelligently difficult tasks to the innovative ones that require ambition.

>>5935292
Get in touch with your masculine side.

>>5934942
This book is supposedly a good study of masculinity:
http://www.raewynconnell.net/p/masculinities_20.html

I think the whole debate between masculinity being a social construct or a natural thing is based on a false dualism between culture and nature as if they can be totally separated. Social stuff is not merely something imaginary, it is a part of nature. But that also means that nature changes in radical ways through history when you get to really complex biological communities such as human cultures.
To say repeat the same thing in other words: social constructionism has a bad tendency towards saying that social things are fictitious as if they were somehow less real. While "naturalism" has a bad tendency to severely reduce the complexity and change of relations between biological organisms like us.

>>5936210
There are people this daft who actually exist.

>>5936331
>If society in general treats women, professionally better, academically better and socially better, this will invariably come at the expense of men.

It depends how it's done. Although men used to be better considered than women, most men still had pretty shitty lives. I'm not convinced that more opportunity for women mean that men are dealt a bad hand, it's really a matter of implementation.

>as can be seen in the idea that men are in general disposable.

Well, that idea isn't actually incompatible with treating men better professionally and academically. Men used to be understood as the capable gender, that is to say, the gender that does stuff outside the house, but also the gender that has to put up with shit outside of the house.

>>5935948
Actually, no, with no consequence at all.

And don't speak about le degeneracy with me, customs need validation through economic and social demands.

>>5936349
This
There are some jobs that are more suited for men than women and vice-versa.
In fact, in some Scandinavian countries (Norway and Sweden, if I recall correctly), where women are actively encouraged to pursue "male" jobs, women are still more interested in "female" jobs, like taking care of children or being nurses. This suggests that men and women have different abilities and interests, and that these are not entirely a social construct (there are after all clear differences between the male and female psyche that are biologically determined - recent studies in neuroscience seem to indicate so).

>>5935838
>We don't need wisdom teeth and the appendix either but they are still with us.

>CONCLUSIONS: The more recently born Finnish men have lower testosterone levels than their earlier born peers. This study offers no explanation for this substantial recent adverse development.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2316175

Literally : the extinction of the man

I think we become less and less testosteronic as we domesticate everything we can, especially us. On the other hand, we know that the number of murders escalated precisely when we began our domestication. Nonetheless, with a more clement era accompanied by our technique, the number of our conflicts has decrease drastically.

I think the typical virile man is the man having the biggest quantity of the quantified perspectives of the most important (moral ?) principles of the moment. Nowadays, the hedonism dominates the scene, yet still a lot of war remains --- the traditional virile activity). The modern solider is everywhere going from the stock exchange to the gym, the politics (glorification of Putin as the most masculine man), to the avatar on the internet, the cultivated man, the social fighters and so on. The thesaurus of war remains omnipresent and with it its exact opposite from the hippies with their ''make love not the war'' slogan. I think that nowadays, an individual fights for him before everything else (colleagues, neighbours, acquaintances) and has not a real motivation to fight for something bigger than him beyond the human rights, when actually even the hippies are willing to apply antilebral methods to impose them. A good illustration is the occupy somewhere movement which lead to nothing --- and the even more extreme hippies in the 70s failed as well --- opposite to the radical religious guys who are willing to die for a greater cause. Some say that this lack of defence but more importantly of frontal attack of the liberalism will cause the West --- read Christianity --- to fall before the Oriental nations. Personally, I do not believe so for thanks to its weak moral principles (do what you wish without harming (too much) a third party), if not the weakest ones, the liberalism permits a vast majority of persons to coexist thanks to a personal financial enrichment and an appeasement of the social conflicts. The broadcast of these principles around the world allows the destitute to see that others reach a nice level of wealth and peace with he internet the main tool for this.
The sole risk of the liberalism is that it become a tyranny by itself. Perhaps we even may see the advent of the Anacyclosis ?

I believe that the caricature of the modern virile man will remain as what we see pictured today in the entertainment since I believe that the liberalism is here to prosper --- modulo the biological breakthroughs on the mind which will atone the western metaphysical concept of (true) self and will reel a bit the archetypal enlighten liberal assumption that the reason is the most shared quality in the humanity.

captcha : caduc

>>5936472
>no consequence at all

Tell that to all the overworked single mothers and the kids without a stable family more likely to have mental problems or commit crime.

>>5936494

>quantity of the quantified
>the thesaurus of war
>advent of the Anacyclosis

yikes

>>5936502
>Tell that to all the overworked single mothers
Easily fixed if people like you would allow the right legislations and assistance to be put in place, but for some reason whenever these are attempted it's always the nuclear family people who block it.

>without a stable family more likely to have mental problems or commit crime.
fucking lel

>>5936472
An inevitable consequence of women's emancipation is a low fertility rate. It's actually a big social problem in Sweden right now, especially because of their unrestrained immigration policies (arabs for instance reproduce a lot more than whites). The death of their culture is imminent, because their women work instead or raising children.

>>5936521
>fucking lel

Nice response you have there. And no, more money does not 'fix' the lack of a stable household and multiple people to look after/raise the children.

What possible benefit could you get from pretending the death of the nuclear family is a good thing?

>>5936521
>Easily fixed if people like you would allow the right legislations and assistance
This is better than cultural traditions that do not put a strain on available resources how?

I'm not saying that the government shouldn't help single parents, but it's foolish to act as if it's some sort of ideal

Masculine Domination - Pierre Bourdieu

>>5936585
>Nice response you have there
I honestly thought it wouldn't be necessary to point to the fact that nuclear families also can be unstable and abusive, the structure of the unite itself doesn't imply a functional our desfunctional state.

>What possible benefit could you get from pretending the death of the nuclear family is a good thing?
It's not a good thing nor a bad thing. It's an inevitable process that doesn't invite any type of moral judgement. It's a simply economic reality: the participation of women in the labour pool, the state providing universal services such as basic education, post-secondary education or trade school becoming the norm instead of any transgenerational skill sharing, etc.

It's not a "good" or a "bad" thing because it doesn't matter. If someone chooses to be single and never have kids, as long as he works his contributions to keeping the country moving is as good as any.

The family itself became prominent when it proved a succesful arrangement in regulating a previous stage of our economy. Old habits die hard, so it mostly survives, but its vital need is long gone.

>>5936602
Economic incentives for keeping the family alive have always been a thing as well.

It's not "ideal", it's not outside the ideal either. We don't really have an ideal for such arrangements anymore.

yurope is basically the story of the last masculine man on the planet rebelling against legions of women and girly men

>>5936220
thats a man, anon.

>>5936253
Society is a biological construct.

>>5935955
What about snipers? Ever heard about Lyudmila Pavlichenko?

>>5936015
>GREEK conceptions alone (let alone other historical conceptions) of masculinity are much more nuanced than "fuck women, drink beer, be alpha as fuck"; in fact, this conception is even RIDICULED (and cruelly punished) in the story of the Odyssean suitors

that's a very silly reading of the story
the suitors weren't punished for drinking beer and sleeping with women or for any other expression of their masculinity, that part of their behavior was normal, they were punished for not respecting the property of others, they ruined the household of odysseus because his son couldn't stop them alone being too young and not having enough support

>>5934942
There are none. It's kind of retarded. Sure.

>>5937218
biggest cake of all

>>5935161
>Why would you need masculinity today? We're no longer at constant threat of war and military service in most developed countries is either limited or no longer compulsory. The manual labour sector of the economy is becoming smaller and smaller. Family as a patriarchal unit is dying.

>depression rising
>anxiety rising
>literally 25% of women take some form of antidepressants
>assuring people that we are "happy"

We are miserable in our lives, retard

>>5937632

>muh female snipers

She was more of a guerrilla.

Women don't make good snipers these days for a lot of reasons. If they're on their period, dogs can smell them much more easily. The female body's equilibrium is also much more fragile than that of a man's, in regards to hydration and nutrition. Snipers really need to destroy all evidence of their presence, so the more sanitary stuff you need to bring, the more of a liability you are. A sniper may have to stay in the field for weeks at a time, so you can see how this would all add up to be a problem.

>>5934960
>material conditions dictating the optimum function of the male sex

That's funny, because most advertising (= subconscious instructions for living) relies on fantasy (= non-material conditions).

>children receive more and more public upbringing as opposed to maternal upbringing.

This is true, but it's always been the case that the community contributes to the education of a child (hence, "it takes a village..."). What is happening now is that public opinion is becoming increasingly narrow and this narrow public weltanschauung has a wider purview.

>>5934942
>Is masculinity dying out?
It is, because it's no longer needed. Oil and the third world does all the job nowadays.

>>5935288
Lamow

Those who argue that gender roles are socially constructed should be taken seriously since they themselves, statistically most likely to be men as far as this board is concerned, know very well what it is like to be "feminine" and male.

A generation of men raised by computers programmed by women.

>>5936502
I don't give a fuck about them, take fucking responsibility for your life.

>>5936560
And this is a problem because...?

Who honestly cares if the Swedes disappear? Peoples have disappeared before in the past, some of them committed suicide and knew exactly what was happening to them and let themselves go extinct. Nations and peoples come and go.

Unless you're a Swede and want to fight for your people, then do your best I guess. Try to convince them.

ITT : What the fuck is a "social construct" anyway?
Who's "society"? How does it "construct" this? Why?

What the hell is going on.

>>5939622
Society is hard to define because of how technology allows us to transmit and receive messages from so many places, but it basically refers to a collective of people in communication with each other. It "constructs" gender merely by reinforcing particular roles in language and in the market. So, with every product made, for example, "for her" and every reference to "girls do this, boys do that", genders are further characterized and this leads to a reciprocal "reification" (fancy word for making the abstract concrete). People may not even buy the products marketed in this way, but they buy the difference. And people respond to the language (girls wear makeup, guys don't...you think biology commanded that?).

There are obviously sexual differences between men and women, which people tend to use as a basis to justify the socially created differences.

>>5939628
>girls wear makeup, guys don't...you think biology commanded that?
Yes, I think it did. Men are attracted to women with fair skin because it indicates youth, and fertility. Men like women who wear lipstick because pulpy lips are also a sign of fertility, during oestrus a hormone is released which pulps women's lips, the same way it makes the female baboon's ass red.

And okay, why does "society" perpetuate these gender constructs? Where did they come from? Was it arbitrary? Truly ANYTHING could've come out of tradition and customs?

>>5939654
>Men are attracted to women with fair skin because it indicates youth, and fertility.

lol. citation needed. (actual science pls, though, not le evolutionary survey).

MUST read article http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201106/the-decline-fatherhood-and-the-male-identity-crisis

Holy shiet...

>>5939668
Haha are you serious?

Why don't you have a look here and then consider what a dumb fucking retard you are?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

>>5935951
Well here are some examples:

Approximately 30% of all American children are born into single-parent homes, and for the black community, that figure is 68%;
Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics.
Over half of all children living with a single mother are living in poverty, a rate 5 to 6 times that of kids living with both parents;
Child abuse is significantly more likely to occur in single parent homes than in intact families;
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census;
72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. 60% of America's rapists grew up the same way according to a study by D. Cornell (et al.), in Behavioral Sciences and the Law;
63% of 1500 CEOs and human resource directors said it was not reasonable for a father to take a leave after the birth of a child;
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes according to the National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools;
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes according to a report in Criminal Justice & Behavior;
In single-mother families in the U.S. about 66% of young children live in poverty;
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes;

Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes according to a study by the Charles F. Kettering Foundation.

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes according to a study by the Center for Disease Control;

Of all violent crimes against women committed by intimates about 65% were committed by either boy-friends or ex-husbands, compared with 9 % by husbands;

Girls living with non-natal fathers (boyfriends and stepfathers) are at higher risk for sexual abuse than girls living with natal fathers;

Daughters of single mothers are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 111% more likely to have children as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages.

A large survey conducted in the late 1980s found that about 20% of divorced fathers had not seen his children in the past year, and that fewer than 50% saw their children more than a few times a year.
Juvenile crime, the majority of which is committed by males, has increased six-fold since 1992;

In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households," according to a study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

The Scholastic Aptitude Test scores have declined more than 70 points in the past two decades; children in single-parent families tend to score lower on standardized tests and to receive lower grades in school according to a Congressional Research Service Report.

>>5939679
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

lol at calling anybody a retard after linking a wikepedia page called "physical attractiveness." i already anticipated garbage tier survey science, knowing you wouldn't be able to provide jack shit other than that.

>>5939790
Go ahead then, refute a point or two from that page.