/lit/ - Literature

People are wussies and would rather have a world where everyone is neutered and ineffectual so that no one can ever change anything.

>>6682259

nah man, if its got a dick just snap its neck at birth

jews

>>6682259
>Why is masculinity getting such a bad rep these days

It's like, the feminazis adding fluoride to the water and feminizing our white American youth

Because your idea of "masculinity" is linked (as with "warfare") to irrational and hot-headed retards who strongarm their way through situations they hardly even understand.

Temperance and reason portrays both masculinity and femininity in equally bad light. Because neither are helpful to anyone, least of all the possessor.

Usual meme answer. But it's natural coming from a meme OP.

Your think masculinity is getting a bad rep this day ? No, machism, and other degenerate form of old-school masculinity are. People still have respect for people who can fight for a cause, for fathers who provide for their families, for heroic behavior and for people who can man the fuck up. It's simply that many of those traits aren't considered essentially masculine anymore.

You would know this if you had dated girls in the past ten years. Girls still like masculinity, though not the same masculinity as 50 years ago, it still has the same elements of not being a bitch or a doormat, standing up for yourself, being confident and assertive, and being able to take responsabilities (though that last part applies less to young people).

>>6682289
That is exactly the problem though. The concept of being a good man is being separated from being a man at all. You have men being portrayed as spineless incompetent assholes or pussies, and women having all the power in fiction. People absorb this and follow it, except that formula doesn't work in the real world.

Looking at recent blockbuster movies, I don't think masculinity is in any danger.

>honor, comradeship, bravery, leadership, rivalry, loyalty, heroism, martyrdom, revolution, redemption
None of this is exclusive to warfare.

>>6682295
>You have men being portrayed as spineless incompetent assholes or pussies, and women having all the power in fiction
Generalized as fuck

>>6682281

>>6682259
It's getting a bad rap these days because of the perception that something being "masculine" only exists as a means of oppressing anything "feminine", and that if what is "masculine" isn't actively crushing whatever's feminine then it's not really "masculine" and is therefore a playground for everybody. The balance between Yin and Yang has been deliberately toppled by radicalism.

>>6682295
>You have men being portrayed as spineless incompetent assholes or pussies, and women having all the power in fiction. People absorb this and follow it


If you are old enough to post here, you're just barely old enough to post here.

>>6682297
Look at examples of a standard family in media. Between the mother and father, daughters and sons, who is generally more competent? Of course it's general, I can probably pick any TV commercial and 9/10 times it'll be the same formula:

>husband/man does something stupid
>wise wife/woman tells him off

>>6682284
>Because neither are helpful to anyone
They don't have to be, you soulless utilitarian. Why live if you are going to take the zest out of life for the sake of "temperance and reason"?

>>6682289
>It's simply that many of those traits aren't considered essentially masculine anymore.
A good deal of it is probably this. This is an error of judgment though. These things are all a part of masculine energy.

I fail to see how machismo is degenerate though or what can even be defined as such. Being overtly fond of masculine energy is degenerate but being overtly fond of feminine energy isn't?

>>6682297
>None of this is exclusive to warfare
It all relies on the presence of war/conflict to come into being.

Progressivism is running out of valid directions to go that don't end up in direct conflict with the power structure. Repression and self-blame are the spirit of the day.

Regardless of what's your intent here, you must have enough self-awareness to know that there's no way we can persuade you out of your conviction because you're merely lionising a concept and set of customs assigned to you by birth which you will never grow out of, just like people born and raised in a condition of, for example, material poverty and crime usually have a set of "ethics" and behaviors that are entirely incompatible with your own.

This is all this boils down to: you were probably born in a place of relative backwardness or in a lower class, or you have individual flaws that made you impermeable to modern gender codes. This isn't your fault, but statistically speaking is what's probable. These gender codes do not seem wrong to you because there's an universally agreed set of ethics or values from which we can have a conversation about the usefulness of a particular gender role (even though you try to make up for it by spilling meaningless euphemisms such as "bravery")

What we're talking about is merely a inherent concept of class societies: the divergence of morals and values based on material prosperity and location, where one side looks at the other as soft and the other reciprocates by seeing the other as backwards savages.

If I post a photo of some un-manly man here, it will be unnerving to you because this is what you were born to feel. We can never escape the jail of historical and social conditions. Never. Just like the old man born in Texas in the 40's will always be a man of his time and place, you will be a man of yours.

>>6682311
So fucking generalized it's not even an argument. It's complete conjecture.

>>6682320
>It all relies on the presence of war/conflict
And there's plenty of conflict without war.

>>6682259
>It is masculine attitudes and values that create order
AH HAHAHAHAHA
The negatives of both masculine and feminine should be extracted.

>>6682289
Also, forgot to mention that in some places and some demographics, being a big-word macho will definitely get you laid. Know your audience, you know the drill.

>>6682295
Why is that a problem ? We could just try being good humans.

>You have men being portrayed as spineless incompetent assholes or pussies, and women having all the power in fiction.

What fiction do you consume, seriously ? If anything, when men are portrayed negatively they still have power and some measure of competence (see del Toro's Labyrinth of Pan, the franquist officer is an asshole but badass as fuck, it's hard to not begrudgingly recognize his efficiency). Also, as >>6682297 said, blockbuster. Manly men in cheesy outfits with badass (wo)manly women in sexy outfits.

> People absorb this and follow it, except that formula doesn't work in the real world.

Because you think the formula of "men being real MEN" works in the "real world" ?


>>6682311
That might surprise you, but it's not that much at odd with traditional perspective on family. Family has been understood as the main area of competence of women for centuries, so it's not surprising that a woman would be represented as more competent than a man there. That's like when people say women have a "more human" or "more social" take on managment. What they're saying is that they want to appear progressive when they're simply peddling 1950-era stereotypes.

If you want to see what a man is supposed to do try action movies.

TBH its become obvious that where no more glory is in war that only spooked cucks go fight to protect other peoples money.

If masculinity is suffering in any real way its most likely because its connected to so many spooks.

if "masculinity" lives on in any meaningful way "a way that serves men as individuals in some fashion" then its most likely must be divorced from so much spookiness, including neo-hedonism which is in many respects the ultimate nail in the coffin for masculinity because it make masculine acting a sex object and not ever desirable past that.

>>6682326
>And there's plenty of conflict without war.
I'm using the terms interchangeably, so not to me.

>>6682311
It's a comedic trope, and associating masculinity with pigheadedness (that results in doing something stupid) is probably nothing new. Just like associating femininity with, say, submissiveness or general weakness, which is still going strong after literally thousands of years.

>>6682341
>I'm using the terms interchangeably
Then you're an idiot. If you really think honor, comradeship, bravery, leadership, rivalry, loyalty, heroism, martyrdom, revolution, and redemption do not exist independently from the organized killing of people you are completely deluded.

>>6682315
>I fail to see how machismo is degenerate though or what can even be defined as such.

Machismo is masculine ideal turned into narcissistic self-worship. It's self-indulgent and, ironically, feminine in its lack of self-control. Think the "honorable man" peasant in The Guepard, who will theaten to kill his family if his "honor" is compromised. Guy isn't a father taking his responsability, but a self-enamored idiot who'd rather destroy something than let it shatter his delusional idea of himself.

A less bloody example is husband refusing to cook for themselves because they believe it's their wives role (I've seen people like that). They have internalized those neatly separated roles to such an extent that they will let it damage their autonomy (when autonomy is the quintessential masculine value).


>These things are all a part of masculine energy.

This doesn't mean much. Not being a bitch, taking responsabilities, standing up for yourself when needed is simply healthy adult behavior unless you have issues (which is common, sadly, but adulthood is never an easy thing to come into). Assertive, exterior-oriented energy might be more accurately described as masculine, but so many women have it (and so many men have feminine energy) that the notion isn't very useful at this point.

>>6682311
Pro tip: If a comedy does it it's because the exact opposite is what you'd expect from that scenario. That makes it funny, the point of comedies.

Because the jews are putting fluoride in the water and feminizing American boys who then turn into traps

>>6682326
>You just have so many examples proving your point that I can't counter it.
Ok.

>>6682337
The problem is that these glimpses of masculine power are framed in a way that isn't helpful to the average man. They are either framed as negative by being heavily associated with a villain, like the Pan's Labyrinth example, or a hypermasculine fantasy that can't possibly be replicated in reality. Telling a young boy that being a man means explosions and guns isn't healthy because he just won't be doing those things in his daily life, unless you hook him on movies and video games. Traditionally both men and women were integrated into the family unit, just with different functions. It's why you had the homemaker mom and the disciplinarian dad; they're both crucial, and both generally suited to one gender over the other. That's the kind of masculinity that needs to be emphasized; real, attainable goals, that have clear benefits to the community.

>>6682348
War isn't just physical, nimrod. There are ideological wars too, they have been going on for thousands of years in the form of literature. War is simply the act of engaging an enemy. This extends to the physical and the mental. In this sense, killing and death are also not always physical.

>>6682357
>>You just have so many examples proving your point that I can't counter it.
HAHAHAHAHA
You had literally no examples. It was all pulled out of your ass.

>I can probably pick any TV commercial and 9/10 times it'll be the same formula
How did you even expect me to take you seriously?

>>6682358
>There are ideological wars too, they have been going on for thousands of years in the form of literature. War is simply the act of engaging an enemy. This extends to the physical and the mental.
Alright, war in this sense isn't going anywhere. It's not in danger as long as two people somewhere disagree.

>>6682356
well, it's not working fast enough.

>>6682365
How many TV commercials do you want to see? I'll get the links.

>>6682374
So you can cherry pick me a few commercials out of literally millions that support your point? This argument is necessarily dumb.

>>6682323
shiiiite

this. so this

>>6682353
>the notion isn't very useful at this point
Why isn't it? Why shouldn't we be able to identify which actions stem from masculine energy and which from feminine, and seek to focus on one or the other depending on the gender we are? There's a reason why the majority of men and the majority of women naturally gravitate towards their own energies, and it's because they are founded in the hormones and physical traits that differentiate the sexes.

By not identifying these energies, you are just weaving inner chaos in more and more people. Less people come to understand themselves because less family elders are aware of the most basic principles of their own energies. Children grow up with no guidance, and there is no proper act of initiation into maturity as a result. I'm not saying we go back to the Middle Ages in terms of how we treat the family unit, but we can't lose that vital sense about ourselves intellectually.

>>6682384
Just because you're wrong, doesn't mean it's a stupid argument. I get that you don't want me to show you any evidence, but at least do some research yourself if you don't want to listen right now.

>>6682391
>Just because you're wrong
You haven't proven anything yet.

>I get that you don't want me to show you any evidence, but at least do some research yourself if you don't want to listen right now
>evidence
>research
You were just going to post links to a couple ads on YouTube weren't you?

>>6682394

>You haven't proven anything yet.

Well gee, maybe that's because you flat out said you don't want any evidence or to discuss it any further. Calling the argument off doesn't mean you're right. I only said to pick a number so you couldn't use the cherrypicking fallacy.

>>6682323
My father is more a woman than my mother, and my mother is a good woman. What does that say to you about my capacity to recognize, appreciate, and respect masculinity, and my desire to preserve it? An attempt to fill in something that I lacked in my life? Probably.

But talk about psychology all you want, I would love to hear you argue against the will to power as the most fundamental in life and masculinity's association with the concept of order.

>>6682404
>Well gee, maybe that's because you flat out said you don't want any evidence or to discuss it any further
Fine, post your super compelling "evidence", I can't wait to see it.

>I only said to pick a number so you couldn't use the cherrypicking fallacy
It's going to be cherry picking no matter what unless you can actually cover the complete range of television commercials that have aired. If I said "find me 5 commercials that support your point" no shit you could do that, there are millions of ads.

>>6682411
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9AB8387A4AB3EEC5

Find more on TV. And obviously I can't absolutely prove my point, I can't cite every single contemporary TV commercial airing right now. But if you watch TV the pattern will become apparent.

>>6682417
>I can't absolutely prove my point
That's why I called this argument dumb.

>But if you watch TV the pattern will become apparent
If you constantly look out for them I'm sure they do. Does that mean masculinity is dead? Absolutely not.

>>6682357
>Traditionally both men and women were integrated into the family unit, just with different functions.

Traditionally, lots of marriage were dysfunctional or abusive, people could marry without knowing or caring for each other, rape often meant you had to marry the rapist or the first available guy in order not to sully the family's name, etc.

Your sentence and mine are all blanket generalisations, since the specifics of family structures, which is what really matters to your life, have changed several times since Antiquity (and weren't the same depending on region and class).

You're extracting the pleasant and "functional" aspect of a "traditional family" that always involved a lot more than that, and you're ignoring everything about how things actually played out for people living that system. This would be like assuming you can know the impact of cars on a society simply by looking at the blueprint, ignoring the change in economy, mentalities, energy policies, the crashes, the added productivity and the added pollution, etc.

>they're both crucial, and both generally suited to one gender over the other

"Generally suited" doesn't mean anything unless you're raised by general parents. Unfortunately this world only has specific parents.

Do you not see how wanting chill father to take on a disciplinarian (in your own words) role is hypocritical and, ultimately, damaging to the system itself ?

Because if the dad can force himself to do that, he'll essentially live his fatherhood as a lie or a farce, or at least not without much suffering and insecurity, and there is no way that doesn't reflects poorly on the children.
And if the dad, even a good provider, can't force himself to it, he will be a failure, despite the fact that this role could have been taken by the mother or another role figure. So you end up with the son either despising his father for being a pussy, or despising the system as hypocritical, or both.

And since in a family your relatives always appear as the primary culprits for the misery that's caused by forcing on yourself a system that doesn't suit you, this can easily end in some form of abuse or another. After all, if being "the traditional father" is something you think you have to do for you kids, and if it makes you miserable, how long will it take for you to resent the kids that brought this shit to you ? Sounds fucked up, unrealistic ? Ask any therapist who works with damaged children.

Of course role models are important, but human role models, not mythological heroes or fairy tales fathers (not the best word choice, fairy tale fathers are mostly dicks, which is pretty telling about the downsides of traditional fatherhood, btw). So if you want to not be a shit father, instead of asking tv shows to provide you with a readymade masculine man(tm), turn to the male relative you admire most, be it your father, your grandfather, a uncle, a teacher, an older brother, or why not a mashup of all those.

>>6682323
historicist tripe i hope none of you take seriously

>>6682387
>Why shouldn't we be able to identify which actions stem from masculine energy and which from feminine, and seek to focus on one or the other depending on the gender we are?

Because not every male will have male energy, not every female will have female energy, and since dealing with your own energy is a personal thing, general models that don't account for your personal experience are mostly useless. Instead of trying to focus on "male energy" (note again that we're manipulating vague as fuck concepts here, you could use them to say almost anything) , focus on your own energy.

>it's because they are founded in the hormones and physical traits that differentiate the sexes.

But sex is a pretty rough way of differentiation, it still doesn't differentiate you from about half the population. Instead of talking about "male energy", why not talking about "tall" or "small" energy, "fat" or "slim" energy, "sturdy" or "lanky" energy, "fair skinned" or "dark skinned" energy, etc. All those things have a physiological basis, all those things influence you relationship to the world and to yourself. And since the various influence of each kind of energy are hard to separate, it's more sound to begin from the small ground of what little you experience, which is your own body and your own mind, in all that it is and not simply as a "male" or "female" thing. Or do you seriously think a very driven and assertive woman should compel herself to be less proactive because she's a woman (and not because her excessive assertiveness might damage her ability to do teamwork, for instance) ?
>>6682409
> the will to power as the most fundamental in life

The will to power is shared by all living thing and it's kind of an "all-purposes" concept anyway. It has little to do here.

> masculinity's association with the concept of order

Except tradionally in mediterrean societies the keeper of customs and familial orders are women. You could just as well say that masculinity is associated with disorder since it is associated with war, ambition, initiative, challenge, being proactive, all things that need a measure of disorder to exist. Actually the whole distinction is faulty, men and women are both associated with order and disorder, simply different kinds of disorder, but if one gender is traditionally the gender of stability, don't get it wrong, it's the female gender. Women in Ancient Greece and even Rome weren't expected to wreck up shit and display violence, while men had to be prepared to become soldiers which, has you probably know, sometimes imply being violent and wrecking up shit.

>>6682486
>historicist tripe
You mean, it acknowledges history? Can't have that, can we?

>>6682498
you obviously don't know what that word means

>>6682259
i'm not so sure it's getting a bad rep. people are finally talking about some of the more fucked up aspects of masculinity (like not being able to express one's emotions in a healthy manner). but at the same time loads of websites are popping up that are focused on trying to educate young men on what it means to be a man, and a lot of it seems to promote traditional ideas of masculinity.

>>6682507
>historicist
"a mode of thinking that assigns major significance to a specific context, such as historical period, geographical place and local culture."

I think he does.

>>6682519
"acknowledges" != "assigns major significance"
are you a historicist? i'd be surprised if you are, since you don't seem to know much about the history of the idea

>>6682259
Because this idea of "Manhood" is directly linked to a man's ego and self esteem.
Why would the "beta males" cherish combat, competition, physical prowess, or any celebration of the dominating nature, if they know they will be on the losing/submissive side?

>>6682284
>Because your idea of "masculinity" is linked (as with "warfare") to irrational and hot-headed retards who strongarm their way through situations they hardly even understand.
Which is why it's awesome. It's impossible to understand existence, so the way you've described masculinity is basically the only way to successfully live life. Either that or you just sit there like a little confused bitch. In that case in addition to being confused and suffering the normal pains of life, you get the additional suffering of being despised as an impotent weakling by those around you.

Who do you think are the best men of all time? My top 5 (no order):

-Napoleon
-Genghis Khan
-Charlemagne
-Caesar
-Alexander

>>6683045
>no Cromwell
>no Powell

toplel

>>6683045
Diogenes is the truest man in all history.

>>6683068
TBH Cromwell was badass but I don't consider him on the same level as those guys. He would make top 20.

>>6683032
why cant it be both though

we obviously aren't going to live our lives solely intellectually or we wouldn't be on 4chan. we obviously aren't the great alphas nobody but our compensating mind expects us to be. the healthy thing here is to make a compromise varying in both which suits us according to our values.

i've thought the same thing recently but in a more novel way. i saw the epitome of masculinity and coolness as the characters portrayed by clint eastwood. its more idolatry and infatuation then anything else, and i dont expect it to hold up to even the most indirect scrutiny

>>6683073
>>6683032
i think you guys should bring classical cynicism into this

>>6683045
I genuinely think Arnold should be up there.

>>6682339
underrated post

>courtship reverts to hypergamy
>women hold the most social capital (in the form of sexual capital) that they have since prehistory
>suddenly young men pussifying themselves in supplication

HMM...

>>6683166
which makes it easy as fuck for any serious man to step up and get shit done, since his competition has willingly made themselves into little bitches
it's good bro

>>6682259
>Why is masculinity getting such a bad rep these days, and so often portrayed only from its negative side?

Yeah, Goku and Superman aren't popular characters at all. Everyone is aligned against you, OP, you poor manly man defender of masculinity.

Pic related: reminds me of myself.

>>6682305
Pretty much this

>>6682305
tbh masculinity is inherently oppressive to femininity in many ways. power and social status are zero sum games within closed groups.

Talking about masculinity is doing it a disservice because it's inherently about action

>>6683199
I bet you love Mishima

>>6683199
Posting about talking is doing it a disservice because it's inherently about speaking.

>>6683205
Never read him but Mishima talked about masculinity a lot didn't he?

Spookiest thread on /lit/ right now.

Really though isn't talking about masculinity the same thing as talking about how great your hammer is it about how big your bank account is or just overindulging in your potential in general? Or maybe it's at least overindulging in your absence of any form of basic disadvantages in the context of society?

>>6683210
I think you'll very much enjoy "sun and steel"

>>6683227
Lol, masculinity isn't an advantage because society says it is; it's an advantage because it's inherently better for getting shit done. This is why women continue to (rightfully) acknowledge that men have an inherent advantage in life despite women making more money on average than man given the same credentials and work, women being less exposed to physical danger, women being less likely to be raped, women being less likely to commit suicide, etc.

>>6683241
I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was an advantage only rooted in social construct, I meant that society was where those advantages were most evident, when in contrast to the alternatives shortcomings

To me masculinity represents several things.
One of the most enjoyable activities in my life is exercise, particularly weight lifting. I associate this with masculinity, although I don't mean to imply that it is somehow a bad thing for women to do so. Anyway, for me the dedication and physical exhaustion are great ways to train yourself mentally, not just physically. I contrast this to fat acceptance activists who are predominately women, who represent laziness and resentment.
On the other hand I also see the purely physical aspects of masculinity such as body hair, muscles and I suppose more imposing physiques in general. To me there should be no shame in this and I am disgusted by men who feel the need to feminize themselves because they somehow see their own masculinity as a curse. Embrace yourself, live your life to the fullest, why should you care what some hypocritical asshole thinks of you? Masculinity is beautiful and there is no shame in being a man.

Australian here - one of my politics classes had a week on feminism. We had a guest lecturer from the gender studies department. I won't waste time explaining the entire lecture, but I recall a moment where she pointed to Abbott's masculinity - through exercise such as pic related - as somehow inherently bad, as though it was a way of bullying those who are not masculine. The class agreed with the sentiment. I am still unsure as to what the hell that was all about. I mean, I'm lefty scum and I'm not exactly sporty or interested in "traditional" masculine activities, but this rustled my jimmys.

>>6683253
>>>/fit/

>>6683268
Power and social status are zero sum games in closed groups
it's literally that easy to understand

>>6683270
Stay mad fatty, enjoy your no high test gf

>>6683268

feminists are retarded.

had a guest speaker talk about how a woman who raises her kids traditionally is doing more damage to them than if she brought a new man home every single night.

supposedly because kids will think poorly of women's sexuality if their mom is not banging a new guy every day.

mine got pure ideology.

>>6683268
>as somehow inherently bad

i'm sure this is exactly what she meant

>>6683305
the people who say this kind of thing literally deserve to be beheaded and I would do it myself if given the permission

>>6683268
>>6683268
>B-but the definition of feminism is equal rights and oppurtunities

These clowns will have that general line for the broadcast news. They'll try to make you forget words like feminised or feminization, while taking every action to promote it as far as it will spread. They'll shriek at any hint of a man who is defining what it means to be a woman, and yet have worldwide instituitions doing exactly that for not just men and women, but really any personality imaginable. And it's probably going to get worse.

honestly the whole thing can be explained as just mass manifestation of women being giant pussies

you're talking about a gender that cries three times a week, usually over commercials

you're talking about a gender whose instinctive psychology and way of interacting with reality is "if it makes me uncomfortable, it should change to suit me" (i.e. daddy should change it for me), and which is ALWAYS UNCOMFORTABLE

a gender that literally cannot understand the concept of personal responsibility, because taking responsibility for things you did sometimes means Feeling Bad, and Feeling Bad is Bad (t. woman)

society with the least amount of rape in human history, by an enormous margin? which has seen the rate of rapes drop by like half relative even to a generation prior? RAPE CULTURE! walked into a dark alley in rapetown and got raped? hey, even advising me not to do that makes you a monster, now spend tons of taxpayer money compelling others who had *nothing to do with the rape* to agree with me and sympathise with me or i'll carry a mattress around for attention

if you want to understand modern feminism and the demonising of masculinity and all that, imagine the psychology of some spoiled 7 year old girl you know, and then imagine if she controlled half the votes in society and exercised systemic influence over all the men who controlled the rest

>>6683328
this is just bizarre

what makes you think individual feminists are being hypocritical like that? feminism isn't a big hivemind and not every feminist is representative of the movement

what's your level of education?

>>6683354
>proving feminists right one post at a time

>>6683315

Its not even a real point that what rustles me so much.

Its some blah blah oppression its normal to overstate things so if you ever ask me what i mean then i say it was emotional but if you say its emotional i say you are denying what i say

also (although i would never argue its a cause) one of the most common things among serial killers psychological profile, just behind potty shaming, is mothers who have many men rotate through their lives.

I'm not advocating that the world go full Italian and pretend moms are all virgins, but Italians are not doing any worse in the misogyny department so where the fuck is the proof for what she was saying.

>>6683358
>>6683365
change your tampon milady

>>6683373
not even a woman or a feminist. i just think you're fucking retarded and this board isn't for you

>>6683386
>"if it makes me uncomfortable, it should change to suit me"
>make the bad people go :((( or i'll post 40 times whining about how they make me feel bad :((((

protip: if you see a thread called

[THING YOU DON'T LIKE] DISCUSSION ZONE

do not enter that thread unless you are not a little baby girl who cries when someone disagrees with them

>>6683398
i have no idea what you're talking about

i still think you're an idiot. stop trying to get me to take up the position of a feminist

>>6683358
>>6683358
Yes and there's different types of socialists, within them the marxists, the stalinists, the maoists and there will be disagreements within the individual followers and yesyesyesyesyes

It's a m00t point. I couldn't care less about the walrus-kin tumblerite typing through the night about fart rape, only those in power and what they are encouraging.

>>6683372
>>6683398
>getting rustled by tumblrina feminists
For the sole reason of enraging useless idiots like you, I'm thankful for this kind of people to exist. They may not contribute anything of substance to the political debate, but as long as they succeed in raising /pol/'s blood pressure, they have earned their rightful place in this world.

>>6683410
but 'those in power' aren't homogeneous either. this is just lazy thinking

>>6683045
I'd agree with your list OP. I might add Otto I if we included one more place.

>>6683045
>best of manlets

>>6683032
Post more words from your computer for us

>>6683454
Charlemagne was reportedly ten feet tall.

>>6683423
Who gives a fuck if thats what the results turn out as? With all their contradiactory ideaology they've managed to sell the feel good concept with the question "do you believe in equal rights for both genders?", something Anita Sarkeesian pulled out unashamedly to Colbert. While
this is already pretty moronic question for somone raised in Europe or the US, it's exactly where it becomes somewhat shady.

>>6683489
>medieval measurements
so whose ten feet was it?

>>6683503
Some qt maiden I hope.

>>6683492
but the results you're describing aren't even accurate. it's especially telling when you're trying to slip in words like 'shriek'. and they were in response to a post that may not even be true. you're finding things where they're not.

>>6683516
>tfw you will never be measured by a patrician maiden gently stepping on your lying body
why live?

>>6683528
i just pay high school girls to do that

they're stupid as shit so i don't even pay very much

>>6683199
Whining would be a disservice, not merely talking about it. To let things just go unexplored and not discussed is a bigger disservice. And to an extent, there's a masculine aspect to wanting to discuss and understand a thing, since you are essentially seeking to conquer it in your mind.

Who lowered the guard and let /r9k/ in?

>honor, comradeship, bravery, leadership, rivalry, loyalty, heroism, martyrdom, revolution, redemption

So spooky I almost had a heart attack.

>>6683672
>/r9k/
>masculine

Hah.

>>6683045

daily reminder that napoleon was bad with the girls

daily reminder that masculinity was never defined by validation of the girls, it's only a contemporary ideology phenomena

daily reminder that being chad doesn't mean that you are masculine by all historical data

>>6682348
Where is the appeal in honor without the recognition of a nearby conflict, or the acceptance of conflict as a fundamental necessity for life?

When is comradeship possible without some war to band together in?

How can someone be brave if there is no larger enemy to stand up against?

What is the point of a leader if no one needs to rally against something?

What is a good rival if not an enemy who enjoys the conflict between one another?

What is the point of loyalty if there is not an opposing force to reject simultaneously in pledging allegiance to the other?

Where is the potential for a heroic deed without an enemy to face?

How can one be a martyr without an enemy to lay down in front of?

What is the point of revolution without a larger enemy to overcome?

What is redemption without a past wound from an enemy?

What is the point of exploration, in the process of learning at all, if there is nothing left to explore or learn, if all things are conquered and already known? What is the point of living if all things are conquered and already known?

All of these things require war, conflict with an enemy, to come into being. If you don't care about these things, then fine. But to me, they are all beautiful and make life so much more. They are the music of life. Without them, life is dull.

>One has renounced the great life when one renounces war.
— Nietzsche

>>6682284
>who strongarm their way through situations they hardly even understand.

Oh, they understand the situation alright. Read a history book and learn just how crafty and cunning some of these 'brutes' you so dislike were.

>>6683804
None of those necessitate war u mong

God it's like reading some romantic retard circa 1913 as they argue that the war they're planning is noble and right

You view war so generally that you smooth out the peaks and troughs. Regardless of your opinion on the nobility of "war" that idealized war hasn't been seen in ages. Probably since the ancient Greeks because then there was a shared honor (theoretically, not really in practice) between combatants

There is nothing noble about modern war, and it's ridiculous to act as if "war" is even a meaningful term

>>6683802
everybody serious knows this. feminine men generally do better with men than masculine souls.

The modern order between man and woman is a more faithful reflection of the true nature of their dynamic.

Man might be the most powerful being in existence, if not for the fact that woman controls him.

When man falls in love with woman, he becomes an extension of her. He is her tool, as his hand is his. His willings no longer belong to him but to her. If you had ever carefully examined the nature of the feeling of love as it arises within you, you would have noticed that it is a force which controls you almost as if from without. It is not at all your own will you are experiencing. It's hers.

>>6682323
>gender differences end from the neck up
>because I say so
>if you don't agree you're backward

Ironically, you are the one who has been brainwashed.

>>6683870
The brain is a sexually dimorphic organ, much as the rest of the body.

>>6683837
Why are you people so daft as to identify the whole concept of war with recent territorial disputes over oil?

>Regardless of your opinion on the nobility of "war" that idealized war hasn't been seen in ages.
Total bullshit. Even today there are a number of just causes people take up arms for. Not all of these are "physical arms" though, like your primitive mind interprets.

Masculinity is an engendered spook.

There's a lot more to masculinity than order, or any of the values you're thinking of

>>6683906
If you mean its negative aspects, no one here is pretending it doesn't have those. But everything has a negative side to it.

>>6683804
>>6682259
It's apparent you're more of a feminine (as opposed to masculine) intellectual than a masculine person

There is masculinity in striving for more, which results in war

Masculinity is a lot morr complex and emotion-based than you're making out to be

What's with this spooky conversation? I thought people on /lit/ were smarter than that.

>>6683927
thsi

>>6682259
enough with this trying to start a "literature gamergate."

>>6683914
No, I don't mean its negative aspects

Don't you feel it in being a man?
There's a hunger in masculinity, but also a want to protect and even nurture; to create (it's us that has the seed of creation)

I'm not describing it right, it's almost easier to understand it through its faults (which, in my life, I'm a lot more acquainted with): destruction, paranoia, hatred

>>6683946
Yes, you're right. The drive to establish, to define things, to invent, to protect/preserve, and to teach are all masculine in nature. Any destructive emotion also serves as an umbrella for a number of more creative, tender emotions, and vice versa.

Thinking about it more, femininity seems to be getting just as bad a rep these days. I actually see less femininity in modern entertainment than masculinity. But the abolishing of either of them go hand in hand with the abolishing of the order of opposites in the world which seems like the real issue here.

>>6683865
What is your point, good sir?

There are actions driven by necessity

Those actions driven by survival were done by men

Those actions became a syntagm of a subject-object-context relationship (ie. a muscular man, with a weapon, is fighting for survival)

Now some children are born, they want to be like their *others*, and they see that *others* do things, they start copying the *others*

Now, that syntagm erase the context and just keep the subject with the object implied (ie. a masculine man should fight, should use weapons to be masculine).

Now, to become like their fathers and uncles and other kind, they have to be *masculine* like the first men rather than follow the needs for survival in their era.

Repeat ad infinitum, that's why try to being masculine is correlated with being traditional, conservative and liking the past things. The sad truth is that nobody will ever be from now on masculine, all have to fake it because only the first men had to be genuinely like that.

>>6683889
If war is just your term for any conflict you can see the confusion

War refers to state vs. state

>>6682529
acknowledge
>recognize the fact or importance or quality of
>confirm

Greek civilization was initially matriarchal, though

>>6684032
>Repeat ad infinitum, that's why try to being masculine is correlated with being traditional, conservative and liking the past things

No, it isn't, if anything, it's correlated with progress. To be manly is to go where no one has gone before. Being traditional is another term for being a boring shitbag

>>6684033
>War refers to state vs. state
Sure, but there is a metaphysical understanding of that as well which has existed since the Sumerians.

>>6684050

say 10 things non-vague things you find masculine doing

>>6684023
The point is the basic nature and biological purpose of masculinity.

The male is intended as a slave to the female. He is to compete over reproductive rights with other males and protect the female and her offspring if successful. That's all. It's true throughout the animal kindom. If greater intelligence be necessary to complete these tasks, that is well and good, but that too is its sole purpose. Males have mistaken their heightened intelligence as superiority which is all their own. Where in fact the hard labor of intelligence had simply been outsorced to the slave sex by the female.

Which is the better strategy? That of he who labors, or that of she who need only collect the spoils of that labor?

>>6684032
>because only the first men had to be genuinely like that
Really? What about if you're running a business? Doesn't that require masculinity if you're going to beat your competition?

What about if you're a government trying to dominate other governments? What if you want your society to be the first to invent or achieve something? What if YOU want to be the inventor or achiever? Or you want your family to be the ones who are given the opportunity to go live in a space station in the future when the planet's atmosphere goes to shit? What if you just want to be wealthy; doesn't all this require being highly competitive, destructive, constructive, i.e. masculine?

There is a lot of masculine energy still around today in tons of different fields, still fueling almost all of the world's progresses.

>>6684023
The point is the basic nature and biological purpose of masculinity.

The male is intended as a slave to the female. He is to compete over reproductive rights with other males and protect the female and her offspring if successful. That's all. It's true throughout the animal kindom. If greater intelligence be necessary to complete these tasks, that is well and good, but that too is its sole purpose. Males have mistaken their heightened intelligence as superiority which is all their own. Where in fact the hard labor of intelligence had simply been outsorced to the slave sex by the female.

Which is the better strategy? That of he who labors, or that of she who need only to collect the spoils of that labor?

We're not like the greeks anymore, a man who enslaves people and destroys villages is not a hero.

>>6682259

You hit the nail on the head yourself. You described masculinity in terms of war and conflict then tried to defend it because it's made some nice poetry. Which is kinda creepy but even that is dated. Since WWI people haven't really made art about war in the same way. You don't have the same paintings and poetry from even WW2 outside of the holocaust.

People feel like they can have all the good shit you mentioned without making it gendered and without encouraging barbarism.

>>6684092
>He thinks women in tribal societies don't labor.

>>6684095
>guy who doesn't know what the word barbarian means

>>6684087

You are attributing those things to masculinity but they aren't masculine per se, if you see a gay or a trap doing those things you wouldn't find them masculine.

Ideology likes to take the masculine attribute and add it to things that aren't masculine per se just to keep people engaged, so you see stupid things like a muscular man driving a company to fulfill the american dream, when the man would never have become muscular neither tough or had good endurance by doing that type of activity.

For gods sake, why cant even /lit/ stay on topic.

The only threads that ever get many replies are always gender related, it is like it the only subject on any board people care about any more.

>>6684105
Everyone must labor in such societies. Doesn't change the fact that males do most of the labor (and virtually all of the fighting, which can be a considered a kind of labor).

>>6684095
>Since WWI people haven't really made art about war in the same way
I don't know, there's a lot of video games that still idealize war in a similar manner.

>>6684116
It's one of the most complex subjects there is.

>getting pissy about perceived threats to masculinity

Stop being a bitch.

>>6684120
video games are escapist bullshit for 1st world lil homo fags though. i'd say around 90% of people who play video games haven't experienced war in their home country

>>6684107
>if you see a gay or a trap doing those things you wouldn't find them masculine
Actually I would. Even women can be masculine, you know.

In the most basest, crude way I can put it, whatever (physically or spiritually) has to do with forcing your will onto another thing in order to change it — i.e. shoving your dick into some hole to fill it — it is masculine at its core. And whatever has to do with receiving the force of another in acceptance and bending to it — i.e. letting your hole be filled — it is feminine at its core. There's a bit of masculinity and femininity to every action, but for most actions, one or the other is a CONSCIOUS aspect of it and the other is SUBCONSCIOUS. Typically, whatever is the conscious aspect we see as being that trait dominantly. So whatever action is consciously masculine in nature we attribute as being masculine in nature as a whole. So in the end, I would consider wanting to grow your business by stealing the market under the nose of another business with your superior products or services (or stealing it away from non-existence, even, i.e. finding a brand new market that wasn't yet known to exist) as being a primarily masculine activity.

Hopefully I made sense with that.

>>6684143
It does suggest that the interest, at least, remains.

>>6684126
then why does it attract the two stupidest class of people: feminists and manchildren?

>>6684146

You would find marxism to be masculine?

Or people fighting for gay rights to be masculine?

>>6683865
Only if you're a bitch

>>6684092
Without going into lions or my past relationships, you're forgetting the value of masculinity and being a man in general

>>6684107
It has nothing to do with looks or muscularity
It has to do with vision and leadership

You'll rarely find a very successful entrepreneur that's buff. Elon Musk, who's modus operandi is diving head first into entrenched, archaic industries and carrying them kicking and screaming into efficient modernisn, is an example of one with looks. But have you seen him in '99

>>6684143
>escapist bullshit
It's called entertainment, and the whole point of it is to be something to escape into. Entertainment that fails to make you forget about the monotonous mundane of regular living and strive for a greater ideal is bad entertainment, and bad art even.

>i'd say around 90% of people who play video games haven't experienced war in their home country
What artist ever experiences whatever they make art about? You can't have the artist then. The artist has to be removed from the subject matter and even somewhat ignorant in order to turn it into an idealized form, a.k.a. art.

>>6684146
I just want you to know I've done a lot of thinking and writing on what you've just posted

>>6684146

Alright i understand

Honestly that goes a little too metaphysician for my tastes. It's like the yin and yang thingy. And that lacks of any judgement outside of that metaphysics belief, you are deriving your values from that and that's very dangerous

>>6684155

For example, there you speak about huge sucessful entrepeneurs, and you value them as something really really good because they are *masculine*. That lacks any jugdement about relationships in a less metaphysics realm and more social one.

>inb4 you think too much therefore you are feminine and can't speak about things

>>6684106

>guy who pretends the original meanings of words are the only valid ones

>>6684120

There are lots of films and games and even comics about World War 2 but there is very little literature or visual art from the time or even from people of that time about it. This is really just in contrast with previous wars - most notably WW1 where governments paid artists to go and record what was happening.

>>6684156

>The artist has to be removed from the subject matter and even somewhat ignorant in order to turn it into an idealized form, a.k.a. art.

That's just bananas as far as war art goes - especially literature about war.

>>6682311
Because humor works primarily by subversion of expectation. The husband who poorly fits his dominant role is funny, as is the shrill overbearing housewife.

>>6684172
>that lacks any judgement about relationships in a less metaphysical realm and a more social one
Clarify?

Musk in particular, I consider to be to be hyper masculine in nature, and its those traits that made him so successful, and those traits that also represent the faults in masculinity. He's known for verbally destroying his employees and being generally domineering
And, among the highly successful, nerdy Bill Gates included, he's not alone in those traits

>>6684197
Are you sure about that? Idealization means, to me at least, to remove the ugliness of a thing and accentuate only the beauty in it. I mean, if you see beauty in all the bad things about war — wives losing their husbands, children losing their fathers, men being humiliated in front of their peers when they make very common and easy mistakes on the battlefield and die for it, etc. — then I guess you see reality itself as already the idealized form, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the concept of an idealized form. To create THAT form, you have to hide all the ugliness, which means being removed from the subject matter to a certain degree. And I think most war art does this as it often just shows glory, courage, uniform commandments, etc.

>>6682259
probably because the majority who want to restore masculinity are a bunch of chads who say "BASED BASED" or "FEMINISTS BTFO FUCKING MANGINAS".
>Order is strength, and there is great beauty in strength.

Apollonian please. As Spengler said, this era will just be rehashes of old eras.

>>6684219
A little side note:

In Godfather 3 his ex wife said that she doesn't hate him, she "dreads" him, and it implies his son feels the same
The movie doesn't go into why, but I understand it, and the women in my life have voiced similar
This goes into the faults inherent in masculinity and leadership

>>6684220

It's bananas because it means you have to ignore people like Hemmingway and Sassoon.

I feel like you are also confusing 'idealization' with 'idyllic' as well. Art =/= removing everything ugly but removing everything that is boring or irrelevant.