As a minor example supporting a lot of what’s in that article, my wife went out to hang with a friend of hers, and I hung out with a buddy for a couple of hours. When she came home she asked me how he is, and I said, “I don’t know, I didn’t ask”. She seemed shocked and can’t understand why I say we don’t have those kinds of conversations.
If you want to throw the word pseudoscience around, can you post any scientific evidence that beatin the meat causes porn addiction? I’ve been doing it my whole life and hasn’t caused me any issues, just ask ur mom after I banged her last night.
Yeah beating the meat doesn’t cause any addiction. Just like drinking alcohol doesn’t cause addiction? Or injecting drugs into your body? Do you even know the definition of addiction.
If you are a man, just masturbate 3 times a day, and then don’t masturbate at all for a while. You will see the difference. You don’t need some expert validation for simple shit like that
Bro do you really think masturbating is the same as alcohol or drugs addiction lol. If you genuinely believe that, then idk what to tell you, you’re just wrong. Please try to look for a single scientific paper that supports this absolutely wild view. I will pay you in a million uplemmys.
I’ll be honest I have absolutely no idea what gender dynamics are like in China but there may be a safety component there. A cursory google yields this study. Which lists patriarchal beliefs as a significant risk factor for domestic violence.
My friend, the first thing you need to know about shitty people is that they tend not to be open about how shitty they are. If you share your beliefs with someone manipulative, they will usually hid their real opinions from you.
Sharing media you enjoy is actually sharing your beliefs and ideas. Most people are not poets and are bad at conveying especially emotions but also complex topics in general with words.
I still get sad at the surprise women have when I move before they do
Is this actually a thing? I’ve always moved away from everyone’s path and never noticed anyone feeling surprised by that. And from every man I’ve ever walked with, I can only remember one who I noticed didn’t make room for other people.
Oh, it’s totally a thing. I’m a woman and short, so I’m below the eye line of most men, and I’ve had men plow right over me on crowded sidewalks or at events. Most men expect the woman to yield in that situation and they’ll get annoyed if you don’t. It actually is surprising when a man moves out of the way, though I don’t know if it shows on my face.
Weird. Imo everyone should yield - that way both parties only have to do a little sidestep and they both feel seen. But I guess caring about others seems to be a dying thing anyways…
Possibly, but could also just be a regional/being an ass thing.
I’m in the Southern US and if you don’t sidestep or flat out get out of the way of someone (not just a woman) with a “pardon me” you’re seen as a jackass.
However, I’ve traveled the world and as a 6 foot tall, 200lb man I got a wide berth when walking down the sidewalks in a lot of countries, have to get out of the way in others, seen people cross the street when they saw me, but then have some 5’ nothing dude with a chip on his shoulder try to start a fight with me for existing in Boston (note this is just a very Boston thing)
I’m in the Southern US and if you don’t sidestep or flat out get out of the way of someone (not just a woman) with a “pardon me” you’re seen as a jackass.
It happens for me way more with men. If a woman bumps into me, she apologizes at least 90% of the time, but I’ve rarely gotten an apology from a man. If I do, then he usually has kids with him.
Your two reasons, being below the eye line and being a woman are incongruent. If you’re below the eye line and they don’t notice you, then how are they expecting you to yield?
It’s very interesting to have the view of a women that has transitioned to a men on the feeling side of things. I wonder how the transition is actually affecting his current relationship.
My experience as a man does look like what he talks about however, it’s not as crazy as he is saying. His depiction of manhood feels almost satire to me. Almost all of my interaction with men, I feel safe enough to talk about my problems, my feelings and my opinions on things, both personal or not.
Although, I am me and I do not represent all other men, It’s not untrue that men are lead to believe that they must be the one to shut up and provide for their community/family. Shut up and die for your family, you country. Shut up and do what you have to do. If you really do that, I think you just end up lonely, sad and probably really suicidal.
it’s not as crazy as he is saying. His depiction of manhood feels almost satire to me. Almost all of my interaction with men, I feel safe enough to talk about my problems, my feelings and my opinions on things, both personal or not.
It’s spot on for me. 9/10 times I open up to other men, it’s either diminished, insulted, or ignored. I count 4 friends who’ve actually listened to me. 1 ghosted me some time later. 1 listened rarely, only after I listened to him for hours. The other 2 are true chads and I wish life hadn’t separated us.
When I open up to women, it’s either insulted or saved and later used against me as manipulation.
I just don’t anymore. Only people I talk to are therapists.
This story reminds me of an ex girlfriend that wanted me to open up. So I did. She left me after that. The end result was good though, as it made me realize I needed some professional mental assistance.
That’s my experience, too. Most of the times I’ve opened up to a girlfriend, it’s turned them off. They thought they wanted me to, but they regretted it, which made me regret it. Either that or they later used it to manipulate me. So I just stopped.
well, women also get more attention therefor they are less lonely. Just look at dating apps: women get flooded with likes and messages, but men… good luck getting a like and if you get one, good luck getting a conversation where you are not the only one putting some effort.
Homie, this is quite a bad take particularly in the face of the article in question. One of the biggest things the author was talking about wasn’t quantity of relationships, but quality of relationships. Having first conversations with 50 odd men is not going to produce a quality relationship in which you can talk about significant worries in life, or work through feelings that are causing distress.
but they dont get messages from only 50 year old men, do they? they get messages from a full spectrum of men. The only thing left to do is to choose. When you get to choose and if you know what to look for, you end up finding quality. When you dont get to choose, you either settle down or end up alone. Its offer and demand.
This article isn’t talking about romantic relationships. It’s talking about intimate platonic friendships and how as a man the author found those platonic relationships to be shallower than before he transitioned. This has nothing to do with online dating.
If you have a close female friend, just ask her to show you some highlight of dating app messages. Seriously a good way to start doubting the intelligence of human specie as a whole.
Upvpted because I think that this and the accompanying replies are an interesting look into an outside cishet male viewpoint. Not that I agree but it provides opportunity to analyze an argument that may be common.
I agree with your comment that the history, and how that history has affected marginalized groups, specifically, is important to learn and recognize–and I think this is true of most of western culture.
Like !DrBob said, this article doesn’t feel like that. It cherry picks its sources and the author seems to fundamentally misunderstand Stoicism. In fact, it seems to me that the author is misattributing the failings and misunderstandings of some of Stoicism’s bad actors to the philosophy itself.
I have personally found Practical Stocism to be a useful tool in my own mental health journey, especially where it relates to recognizing and controlling my responses to things other people do or say in my relationships, why my responses are what they are and what I can do about those responses. It has never been taught to me as a tool of suppression, but of experience,acceptance, and, ultimately, control. If I am able to recognize what I am feeling and why, I am better able to decide for myself whether or not it would be valid to respond out of that emotion, or if doing so would perpetuate a cycle it would healthier to break. It’s not about not feeling, it’s about giving me the tools I need to decide how best to respond to what I’m feeling.
That being said, I fully recognize that language evolves and changes and that the word stoicism without the illumination now has negative connotations for mental health, and is mostly associated with unhealthy coping mechanisms and behaviors. Perhaps it would be more useful to ask where the disconnect between Stoicism and stoicism truly lies, and how we, as men (or as humans, since a lot of this ties into basic concepts of emotional maturity) can display different and better behaviors to change the association (if, indeed, we’re even interesting in doing so?).
author seems to fundamentally misunderstand Stoicism
Or rather, is using the word “Stoicism” in a different way than you are. Like when research obviously shows a link between Christianity and intolerance and people come out in droves to say that true Christianity is about love instead of hate.
Yeah, sure, you learned a neater version of stoic values. What the author is referring to is a bit more generalized, a caricature but very real form of stoicism that some people preach, sometimes even without even calling it stoicism themselves.
The conflation of Stoicism, an established and codified philosophy, with the more general idea of bog standard stoicism is precisely my criticism. The author is not using the term differently from me, they are using it incorrectly by conflating it with a more general, and more modern, term–a term without established codification, and vastly different connotations.
Which leads directly to the point I actually made–which you entirely ignored with your reply–that anyone who uses the terms interchangeably, conflates the two, or teaches one as the other fundamentally misunderstands the terms they’re using. Thus my statement that the author is laying the connotations of one term at the feet of another, different and distinct, term.
Stoicism (capitalized) and stoicism (the more general, more modern term) are not the same thing, which is why this article, in my opinion, misses the mark.
It is not so much that they are conflating two unrelated stoicisms as you seen to imply but rather that you seem to be specifically trying to distance yourself from historical stoicism. There’s good reason for this, stoic philosophy was originally just as tied up in metaphysics as any ancient philosophy. This sense of metaphysics, while easy to discount from a modern perspective, was used primarily to justify existing power structures. Key among them patriarchy and slavery. Ultimately, this has little to do with the particulars of the philosophy. Knowing that, it would seem an easy task to separate the two as you would like to and yet it is still remarkably difficult to find any modern stoic groups that do not recommend Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus, etc.
What you call the more general stoicism (lower case) is better understood as the whole of stoic cultural influence as it relates to the modern world. Even the etymology of stoics comes from the school of philosophy. It is not reasonable to try to claim stoic philosophy is best understood as only it’s most modern incarnations even as popular stoicism relies on ancient men to be it’s primary mediums.
I’d be very interested to explore this idea further with more historical discourse / critiques, if you have any sources, as it’s my understanding that modern Stoicism is based primary on Seneca’s work, and treats Seneca’s ideas of the Stoic Sage as a both a blueprint for modern Stoicism and the evolution of the ideas of prior Stoics.
I appreciate your perspective, and it’s clear we’ve been educated on these topics quite differently. I’d love to learn more!
Because we’ve learned that there’s 49% of humanity out there that we haven’t sold unrealistic physical and psycho-social trends to. Women are tapped out, but there’s a whole new market in men!
Men are also different from women. Not just physically but mentally. Part of the problem the writer had was not understanding how male friendships work and expecting a mirror of female friendships. Certainly it can be lonelier as a man but in some ways it’s just the way we are.
I’m just saying that men in general have a much easier time being alone. I don’t think we should always be alone, but more men than women have the ability to be solitary and happy at the same time.
I think the important thing here is that there’s absolutely no reason it HAS to be this way. These aren’t intrinsic properties of male and female friendships. They are driven primarily by cultural factors and have changed significantly even over recent history.
I’m just saying the cultures arise from the people. There’s a reason things are the way they are and it’s not some evil corporation or government trying to oppress us. At least in the west. Can’t quite say that about China or other Communist regimes.
Things are the way they are because people are forced into the culture they were born into and are pressured at every angle to stay that way or face social backlash.
I got called gay cause I got too excited while talking to one of my friends. Because it’s a common culture trait in America that any overly positive emotion towards another guy means your a sissy boy
They called you gay not because they thought you were homosexual but as an offhanded insult. The two definitions have been disconnected for quite a while.
Trust me it wasn’t just an insult where I grew up it had a seriously negative impact on my ability to socialize or form any kind of romantic relationship
You're right to a point, it's just coming off as dismissive.
Yes, men and women are built differently through biology. Yes, hormones give an innate edge for certain factors. One of them may very well be the ability to last without a social structure for longer than women. We've slowly built up our society with smoky mirrors of those facts around us.
What they're saying is that nature vs nurture isn't 100% one way or the other which I think you'd agree with. It's more you're both pressing pedantic points lol.
It does when it comes to closeness and intimacy with friends. Look at a lot of European cultures where kissing your friends is extremely common and closeness is normalized.
It’s all the anti gay shit that gets spread in America that makes men uncomfortable to be close and open with their friends
I really appreciate you taking the time to say that.
A side note to the above; men struggle to keep friends, especially as the years go on, but our group keeps growing (all initiated to the power of hugs and love).
I think it’s the openness that’s made it so much easier to stick together rather than fade away. I hope more men can open up and deeply bond beyond surface interests and common spaces.
Of course! Changing the world starts with changing the world immediately around you. You're truly doing good, even more so by opening your group to newcomers!
Ignoring the biological effects of testosterone on the male body is dangerous. This makes males aggressive, violent, and hierarchical. These are intrinsic and not driven by cultural factors. Sports exist for a healthier outlet for this aggressive and biological need for competition.
Lol nice. Well I’m sorry, if you lived in the US in a state that we frequent, I would get you a few hugs. Maybe you should just make a sign that says free hugs and stand in the middle of a public area. I’ll bet you would get some real good ones…
Easily possible. Grow up somewhere with a lot of macho man mentality with a toxic masculine father figure that wants nothing more than for you to grow up to be their clone that only like MAN stuff. Took me over 30 years to be hugged the way I didn’t know i needed to be hugged because I fell into a friendship with a woman that knew a few broken men.
The problem is not about you. It’s about your ability to accept another man who wants a “female” friendship. And apparently you don’t want any of that, which makes you part of the problem.
I’m talking about a woman who wanted to physically be a man but is still mentally programmed as a woman could not understand male friendships. It’s not that men don’t have friends or deep friendships. It’s just that they’re usually different from the opposite gender.
Men's Liberation
Active