[Devolution]

Within feminism there is constant talk about the trials and tribulations women face. The double standards, the pressure to conform to old values and feminism has gone a long way to help women deal and denounce traditional bullshit that just doesn't work if we want equality. It's not wrong in any way but I've come to find that I'm not necessarily learning anything new about my gender's plight so I decided to read about the plight of men my age. On a recommendation from Mumei, I picked up Guyland, which looks at what's going on with men from a feminist and supportive perspective. A lot of reviews bash it for being too critical but I don't think they actually read it without feeling personally vilified, or maybe didn't read it at all since in one of the very first chapters he talks about not viewing all young men as subject to the rules and regulations he tries to map in the book. Here are some passages:

It's easy to observe "guys" virtually everywhere in America–in every high school and college campus in America with their baseball caps on frontward or backward, their easy smiles or anxious darting eyes, huddled around tiny electronic gadgets or laptops, or relaxing in front of massive wide-screen hi-def TVs, in basements, dorms and frat houses. But it would be a mistake to assume that each conforms fully to a regime of peer-influenced and enforced behaviors that I call the "Guy Code," or shares all traits and attitudes with everyone else. It's important to remember that individual guys are not the same as "Guyland." In fact my point is precisely the opposite. Though Guyland is pervasive–it is the air guys breathe, the water they drink–each guy cuts his own deal with it as he ties to navigate the passage from adolescence to adulthood without succumbing to the most soul-numbing spirit crushing elements that surround him every day. Guys often feel they're entirely on their own as they navigate the murky shadows and the dangerous eddies that run in Guyland's swift current. They often stop talking to their parents, who "just don't get it." Other adults seem equally clueless. And they can't confide in one another lest they risk being exposed for the confused creatures they are. So they're left alone, confused, trying to come to terms with a world they themselves barely understand. They couch their insecurity in bravado and bluster, a fearless strut barely concealing a tremulous anxiety. They test themselves in fantasy worlds and in drinking contests, enduring humiliation and pain at the hands of others. All the while, many do suspect that something's rotten in the state of Manhood. They struggle to conceal their own sense of fraudulence and can smell it on others. But few can admit to it, lest all the emperors-to-be will be revealed as disrobed. They go along, in mime. Just as one can support the troops but oppose the war, so too can one appreciate and support individual guys while engaging critically with the social and cultural world they inhabit. In fact I believe that only by understanding this world can we truly be empathetic to the guy in our lives. We need to enter this world, see the perilous field in which boys become men in our society because we desperately need to start a conversation about that world. We do boys a great disservice by turning away, excusing the excesses of Guyland as just "boys will be boys"–because we fail to see just how powerful its influence really is. Only when we begin to engage in these conversations, with open eyes and open hearts–as parents to children, as friends, as themselves–can we both reduce the risks and enable guys to navigate it more successfully. This book is an attempt to map that terrain in order to enable guys–and those who know them, care about them, love them–to steer a course with greater integrity and honesty, so they can be true not to some artificial code, but to themselves.

Whenever I ask young women what they think it means to be a woman, they look at me puzzled and say, basically, "Whatever I want." "It doesn't mean anything at all to me," says Nicole, a junior at Colby College in Maine. "I can be Mia Hamm, I can be Britney Spears, I can be Madame Curie or Madonna. Nobody can tell me what it means to be a woman anymore." For men, the question is still meaningful–and powerful. In countless workshops on college campuses and in high-school assemblies, I've asked young men what it means to be a man. I've asked guys from every state in the nation, as well as about fifteen other countries what sort of phrases and words come to mind when they hear someone say, "Be a man!" The responses are rather predictable. The first thing someone usually says is "Don't cry," the other similar phrases and ideas–never show your feelings, never ask for directions, never give up, never give in, be strong, be aggressive, show no fear, show no mercy, get rich, get even, get laid, win–follow easily after that. Here's what guys say, summarized into a set of current epigrams, Think of it as a "Real Guy's Top Ten List." 1. Boys don't cry 2. It's better to be mad than sad 3. Don't get mad–get even 4. Take it like a man 5. He who has the most toys when he dies, wins 6. Just do it or Ride or Die 7. Size matters 8. I don't stop to ask for directions 9. Nice guys finish last 10. It's all good The unifying emotional subtext of all these aphorisms involves never showing emotions or admitting to weakness. The face you must show to the world insists that everything is going just fine, that everything is under control, that there's nothing to be concerned about (a contemporary version of Alfred E. Neuman of MAD Magazine's "What, me worry?"). Winning is crucial, especially when the victory is over other men who lave less amazing or smaller toys. Kindness is not an option, nor is compassion. These sentiments are taboo. This is "The Guy Code", the collection of attitudes, values and traits that together composes what it means to be a man. These are rules that govern the behavior in Guyland, the criteria that will be used to evaluate whether any particular guy measures up. The Guy Code revisits what psychologist Willian Pollack called "the boy code" in his best selling book Real Boys–just a couple of years older and with a lot more at stake. And just as Pollack and others have explored the dynamics of boyhood so well, we now need to end the reach of that analysis to include late adolescence and young adulthood. In 1976, social psychologist Robert Brannon summarized the four basic rules of masculinity: 1. "No Sissy Stuff!" Being a man means not being a sissy, not being perceived as weak, effeminate or gay. Masculinity is the relentless repudiation of the feminine. 2. "Be a Big Wheel." This rule refers to the centrality of success and power in the definition of masculinity. Masculinity is measured more by wealth, power and status than by any particular body part. 3. "Be a Sturdy Oak." What makes a man is that he is reliable in a crisis. And what makes him so reliable in a crisis is not that he is able to respond fully and appropriately to the situation at hand, but rather that he resemble an inanimate object. A rock, a pillar, a species of tree. 4. "Give 'Em Hell." Exude an aura of daring and aggression. Live life out on the edge. Take risks. Go for it. Pay no attention to what others think. Amazingly, these four rules have changed very little among successive generations of high-school and college age men. James O'Niel, a developmental psychologist at the University of Connecticut, and Joseph Pleck, a social psychologist at the University of Illinois, have each been conducting studies of this normative definition of masculinity for decades. "One of the most surprising findings," O'Neil told me, "is how little the rules have changed."

I'd like to get more honest points of view from Gaffers on how they feel traditional molds of masculinity keep them down. I'd like to talk about it without needing to target feminism, like so many MRA movements tend to do. Feminism, is not the issue here and I'm tired of discussions revolving around the unfair definitions of masculinity coming back to some anti-feminist screed or the desire for equality tipping the scales in women's favor. I might be setting the bar too high but let's actually try this since I can't learn of men's experiences with these outdated notions without asking them firsthand.

[Emitan]

Some posts I had in the Girl GAF thread:

"The worst part about them is you can't really reject them without feeling completely isolated. Show too much emotion? Other men start to disrespect you. Even women seem to expect men to follow this code to some degree, although I guess that's not really different from the expectations of femininity men have for women."

"I stopped really caring what my dad thought when I was a little kid. Jeeze, sorry I'm not a competitive asshole, Dad. I'll stop disappointing you by being nice? What the hell is that?"

[EviLore]

These definitions of masculinity as so pervasive as to feel hard-coded, really, but they're clearly exclusionary and outmoded, too. How do we say "being a man is about conquering desirable women and not having feelings and beating people up" and simultaneously say that there's nothing wrong with being gay or to be able to express yourself how you want? The concepts are at odds. This is how you have situations like a father being disappointed in his son for being incapable of fulfilling masculine ideals.

[brucewaynegretzky]

Prediction: This forum will be extremely sympathetic to this argument in its entirety and offer very little criticism.

To me... eh, seems a little too "new-age" for me. Nothing wrong with competitiveness with guys or girls. Most of those "What it means to be a man" answers to me sound like "What it means to be an adult." People should strive for success, and newsflash, life is competitive. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. Sometimes it's hard. Find people you trust and deal with it.

[Emitan]

Prediction: This forum will be extremely sympathetic to this argument in its entirety and offer very little criticism. To me... eh, seems a little too "new-age" for me. Nothing wrong with competitiveness with guys or girls. Most of those "What it means to be a man" answers to me sound like "What it means to be an adult." People should strive for success, and newsflash, life is competitive. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. Sometimes it's hard. Find people you trust and deal with it.

There's a difference between being an adult and being an asshole.

1. Boys don't cry 2. It's better to be mad than sad 3. Don't get mad–get even 4. Take it like a man 5. He who has the most toys when he dies, wins 6. Just do it or Ride or Die 7. Size matters 8. I don't stop to ask for directions 9. Nice guys finish last 10. It's all good

That all sounds like normal, respectable behavior?

[Devolution]

These definitions of masculinity as so pervasive as to feel hard-coded, really, but they're clearly exclusionary and outmoded, too. How do we say "being a man is about conquering desirable women and not having feelings and beating people up" and simultaneously say that there's nothing wrong with being gay or to be able to express yourself how you want? The concepts are at odds. This is how you have situations like a father being disappointed in his son for being incapable of fulfilling masculine ideals.

I noticed more and more was I was going through feminist talk and even in social circles that the definition of a woman has encompassed so many things now beyond traditional "feminine" into stuff people ascribed as "masculine" but the reverse hasn't really happened. The definition of what is a man remains narrow even as the definition of woman expands, it makes for a tough ass time for both men and women, but especially men I think. If we're allowed to project whatever we want, what the fuck do we need a man for? We expect a man to be our equal and if he's stuck in Don Draper mode because of how he's socialized by his father and peers it's just like "well fuck."

Prediction: This forum will be extremely sympathetic to this argument in its entirety and offer very little criticism. To me... eh, seems a little too "new-age" for me. Nothing wrong with competitiveness with guys or girls. Most of those "What it means to be a man" answers to me sound like "What it means to be an adult." People should strive for success, and newsflash, life is competitive. Sometimes it sucks. Get over it. Sometimes it's hard. Find people you trust and deal with it.

Did you even read anything or what?

[Suairyu]

Most of those "What it means to be a man" answers to me sound like "What it means to be an adult."

So to be an adult, you must:
1. Not cry.
2. Get irrationally angry when something makes you upset.
3. Channel that anger and take it out on someone who think has slighted you.
4. Never ask for help.
5. Obsessively hoard shit.
6. Make swift decisions without thinking of the consequences or bothering to get proper training.
7. Realise that you're entirely defined by either your height or the size of your dick.
8. Walk aimlessly if you're lost.
9. Never be nice to people.
10. Accept everything as it is, never question.

?
Which ones don't you agree with? Because, you go on to say:

Find people you trust and deal with it.

Which contradicts most of the list.

[brucewaynegretzky]

There's a difference between being an adult and being an asshole. That all sounds like normal, respectable behavior?

Not in all circumstances, but in a sizable number of situations? Yes absolutely. Life is competition. No one is saying you shouldn't spread the wealth as well. I'm hardly a "bootstraps" person, but bottom line is you have to constantly trying to outperform others to get by. This is like those people who don't get that their classmates are their competition. Nothing wrong with collaborating and getting along, but in a very significant way you need to beat them.

I'm not saying these things are absolutes, but they are important lessons for very large areas of life.

[Suairyu]

Not in all circumstances, but in a sizable number of situations? Yes absolutely. Life is competition. No one is saying you shouldn't spread the wealth as well. I'm hardly a "bootstraps" person, but bottom line is you have to constantly trying to outperform others to get by. This is like those people who don't get that their classmates are their competition. Nothing wrong with collaborating and getting along, but in a very significant way you need to beat them.

Not a single item on that list is needed to outperform others on your own merits.

[Professor Beef]

The entire notion of a "guy code" is a tremendous load of horseshit anyways. Just let guys live their life without forcing some fake notions onto them.

And to address something that was posted in GirlGAF:

I really do hate that "guy code." I got the "don't be a sissy" stuff from my dad all the time.

It's because you won't play Fire Emblem :P I stopped really caring what my dad thought when I was a little kid. Jeeze, sorry I'm not a competitive asshole, Dad. I'll stop disappointing you by being nice? What the hell is that?

Fire Emblem didn't even exist when I was a kid!

My mom tried to pick up the slack when her and him separated and she even made me try out for football. She relented when she figured out it wasn't for me...and also because I was on the bench reading magazines every game.

[lopaz]

Hahahaha oh lord. A 'feminist' trying to be 'empathetic' to the modern male plight? It's only because of manipulative feminist power grabbing that we're in this situation

Not that you can really blame them - life's a war. And this is a shitty attempt at propaganda :)

[brucewaynegretzky]

Not a single item on that list is needed to outperform others on your own merits.

Your interpretations of what those things mean is just wrong. Who said anything about "irrational anger." Anger is very often perfectly justified. And I'm not saying take out aggression on people you "perceived slighted" you. The fuck is this shit? It's like you turned all those things into "bro" stereotypes.

[Emitan]

The entire notion of a "guy code" is a tremendous load of horseshit anyways. Just let guys live their life without forcing some fake notions onto them. And to address something that was posted in GirlGAF: Fire Emblem didn't even exist when I was a kid! My mom tried to pick up the slack when her and him separated and she even made me try out for football. She relented when she figured out it wasn't for me...and also because I was on the bench reading magazines every game.

It's almost as if having a penis doesn't automatically make us enjoy sports! Crazy!

Hahahaha oh lord. A 'feminist' trying to be 'empathetic' to the modern male plight? It's only because of manipulative feminist power grabbing that we're in this situation Not that you can really blame them - life's a war. And this is a shitty attempt at propaganda :)

This totally makes sense! Feminists are MIND CONTROLLING MEN to make them think this way! WHAT OTHER EXPLANATION COULD THERE BE?

[Devolution]

Hahahaha oh lord. A 'feminist' trying to be 'empathetic' to the modern male plight? It's only because of manipulative feminist power grabbing that we're in this situation Not that you can really blame them - life's a war. And this is a shitty attempt at propaganda :)

I'm sorry but what the fuck is this? Do you think feminism is synonymous with misandry?

[brucewaynegretzky]

It's almost as if having a penis doesn't automatically make us enjoy sports! Crazy!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Who said shit about sports?

[Emitan]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Who said shit about sports?

The post I was quoting?

[brucewaynegretzky]

The post I was quoting?

Not what the OP is talking about though.

[Professor Beef]

Hahahaha oh lord. A 'feminist' trying to be 'empathetic' to the modern male plight? It's only because of manipulative feminist power grabbing that we're in this situation Not that you can really blame them - life's a war. And this is a shitty attempt at propaganda :)

...Is this a real post?

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I don't think that traditional conceptions of masculinity are bad much as I think we should be more open to people that choose to be exceptions. For example, I don't think that those passages would be relevant or describe the experience or feelings of most guys that I've ever known, but there probably are SOME that it does, for sure.

[Kabouter]

Honestly, I don't feel traditional definitions of masculinity keep me down at all.

This is why I come into these threads. Okay, before you're banished, I'm gonna milk you. So, lemmie give you some questions:

Sorry :(

[Suairyu]

Hahahaha oh lord. A 'feminist' trying to be 'empathetic' to the modern male plight? It's only because of manipulative feminist power grabbing that we're in this situation Not that you can really blame them - life's a war. And this is a shitty attempt at propaganda :)

This is why I come into these threads.

Okay, before you're banished, I'm gonna milk you. So, lemmie give you some questions:

1 - Did you read a single thing in the OP?
2 - Do you realise that feminism is the struggle against gender inequality? It isn't a girl thing, it's an everyone thing.
((Side note - I do feel the broad topic of criticism that is feminist theory needs a name change now, or we need to update it and create something new, but that's a different discussion))
3 - Did you read a single thing in the OP?
4 - What exactly did the manipulative feminists power-grab to create this guy code?
5 - Did you read a single thing in the OP?
6 - What propaganda does this book, this thread and the shared topic spread?
7 - Did you read a single thing in the OP?
8 - If you feel there is a modern male plight "situation", why aren't you being more active in feminism to address the inequality?
9 - Did you read a single thing the OP?
10 - No, seriously, did you read a single thing in the OP?

EDIT - WHO BANNED MY QUARRY BEFORE I HAD FINISHED ARGUING WITH HIM?!?

[brucewaynegretzky]

Another random thought. A lot of that boils down to ruthlessness in competition, at least that's how I see it. I think a large portion of that is because for guys life really just IS more of a competition. For a lot of girls (and yes this is sexist, but I also think rather realistic) the idea of falling back on being a stay at home mom is always there. Guys don't see that as a socially acceptable option. So in that sense guys have FAR more pressure to be successful. Again, just a thought.

[Devolution]

About feminism:

And feminism also dares to expect more from men. Feminism expects a man to be ethical, emotionally present, and accountable to his values in his actions with women–as well as other men. Feminism loves men enough to expect them to act more honorably and actually believes them capable of doing so. Feminism is a vision that expects men to go from being "just guys", accepting whatever they might happen to do, to being just guys–capable of autonomy, authenticity, inspired by justice. That is, feminism believes that guys can become men.

The misandry is so thick.

Another random thought. A lot of that boils down to ruthlessness in competition, at least that's how I see it. I think a large portion of that is because for guys life really just IS more of a competition. For a lot of girls (and yes this is sexist, but I also think rather realistic) the idea of falling back on being a stay at home mom is always there. Guys don't see that as a socially acceptable option. So in that sense guys have FAR more pressure to be successful. Again, just a thought.

So why do you suppose being a househusband isn't an option many men would dare choose or encourage?

[Suairyu]

Devo stop posting that hateful bile already.

inb4 "but I'm dating a man so I can't be a misandrist"

[brucewaynegretzky]

So why do you suppose being a househusband isn't an option many men would dare choose or encourage?

See I'm not the person to ask on this one, because I'm not a big fan of "housewives" either. I would never date someone who wanted to be one.

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

It's somewhat misandrist in that it suggests that men WOULDN'T be that way in the absence of feminism.

Edit: And for what it's worth, I don't think most men would want to be househusbands for the same reason that men die younger and go to prison more often - testosterone's a hell of a hormone.

For what it's worth, I've always identified more with the idea that there ARE differences between men and women that will express themselves even in the absence of socialization and that the goal of feminism and movements toward gender equality should be about valuing those differences and valuing those who don't conform, rather than suggesting that gender norms are wrong in themselves.

[Professor Beef]

See I'm not the person to ask on this one, because I'm not a big fan of "housewives" either. I would never date someone who wanted to be one.

Why is that? Not trying to bust your chops here, I'm just curious.

[Suairyu]

Kabouter! It was you? Curses! What happened to the unwritten rule of letting threads about gender issues build up to page 50 before letting the grey-named bloodbath begin? It is time for a spring clean, you know.

Your interpretations of what those things mean is just wrong. Who said anything about "irrational anger." Anger is very often perfectly justified.

"Don't get sad, get mad" - it's another twist on "boys don't cry". It's saying "you're upset? That's for pussies. Go get angry and hit/fuck something."

And I'm not saying take out aggression on people you "perceived slighted" you. The fuck is this shit? It's like you turned all those things into "bro" stereotypes.

They are all bro stereotypes. That's the point of the list and the answers given back. Or didn't you read that part? And "perceived slighted you" - "Don't get mad, get even" - It's "an eye for an eye" bullshit and not something adults should do.

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Your interpretations of what those things mean is just wrong. Who said anything about "irrational anger." Anger is very often perfectly justified. And I'm not saying take out aggression on people you "perceived slighted" you. The fuck is this shit? It's like you turned all those things into "bro" stereotypes.

Those things are bro stereotypes, almost by definition. Hell, a bro is simply the purest distillation of a young man who lives his life by the "guy code".

I have nothing really to say apart from echoing the fact that, yes, a rejection of any of those parts of the "code" or a failure to live up to any part of it will result in social isolation, often subtle, sometimes overt. It really depends on where you live, however, as not every culture prioritises the same aspects over the others.

From what I hear, men from the northern US and Canada are simply more affable than men from the Southern US if you do something to slight them and this goes back to culture. The book appears to be rather US-centric, but you get that.

[Devolution]

See I'm not the person to ask on this one, because I'm not a big fan of "housewives" either. I would never date someone who wanted to be one.

But who is talking about your personal preferences? You're hand waving the question.

[The Anti-Monitor]

Any sort of code for masculinity and feminity are inherently ridiculous and laughable, and go completely against the idea of gender equality.

[brucewaynegretzky]

Why is that? Not trying to bust your chops here, I'm just curious.

I was raised by a working mom. I have a ton of respect for what my mom pulled off while raising me, aka having an awesome career. All the stay at home moms I met when I was younger were always pathetically attached to their children. To me, and I know I'm gonna get eaten alive on this, it shows a major lack of ambition and often (no, not always) in ability. Most of the women who wanted to be stay at home moms when I was at school were the lazy and crappy students who really weren't looking towards having a career. I find the whole mentality horribly unattractive. I want to talk about my career with a significant other, work towards mutual goals, and watch eachother succeed together.

But who is talking about your personal preferences? You're hand waving the question.

I have no idea. Honestly.

[Suairyu]

Any sort of code for masculinity and feminity are inherently ridiculous and laughable, and go completely against the idea of gender equality.

Aye, but for a large part of the world-wide population, such codes exist. The challenge is in de-fanging them.

[distantmantra]

So why do you suppose being a househusband isn't an option many men would dare choose or encourage?

I'd stay home and raise our daughter if we could afford to do so. I've got a friend who does this and I think it's awesome that he was willing to sacrifice his career for a period of time to help at home.

[Professor Beef]

I was raised by a working mom. I have a ton of respect for what my mom pulled off while raising me, aka having an awesome career. All the stay at home moms I met when I was younger were always pathetically attached to their children. To me, and I know I'm gonna get eaten alive on this, it shows a major lack of ambition and often (no, not always) in ability. Most of the women who wanted to be stay at home moms when I was at school were the lazy and crappy students who really weren't looking towards having a career. I find the whole mentality horribly unattractive. I want to talk about my career with a significant other, work towards mutual goals, and watch eachother succeed together.

Coming from another guy raised by a working mom, I can understand that. I wouldn't go and paint all women (I know you did not do this, I'm just speaking in general right now) who choose to be homemakers like that though, since the choice is ultimately up to them. Having a choice is what matters to me in the end, whether or not the person is a man or woman.

[Devolution]

I'd stay home and raise our daughter if we could afford to do so. I've got a friend who does this and I think it's awesome that he was willing to sacrifice his career for a period of time to help at home.

Personally I'd be kind of jealous of anyone, man or woman, who gets to be the housespouse (out of choice of course) since that means way more time seeing the kids. I keep getting told they're grown before you know it. Might get annoyed with them but they're not going to be cute and little forever and a career seems to kind overshadow that sometimes.

[squidyj]

The only thing I don't understand in the OP is the focus on technology. That toys remark in the top ten seems to be more about wealth accumulation, achieving trappings of success than being directly about technology yet the author continually describes "guys" in relationship to technology. I haven't read the book so is this substantiated elsewhere in it?

[distantmantra]

Personally I'd be kind of jealous of anyone, man or woman, who gets to be the housespouse (out of choice of course) since that means way more time seeing the kids. I keep getting told they're grown before you know it. Might get annoyed with them but they're not going to be cute and little forever and a career seems to kind overshadow that sometimes.

Being a homeowner in Seattle isn't cheap, so that option isn't available to us. If it were, I'd be the one to stay at home since my wife makes way more than I do. My parents are going to be watching our little one once my wife goes back to work next month. If the two of us aren't going to be there for everything, at least grandma and grandpa will get to experience those things during the day. I will have summers off with her, since I work in the public schools.

[Kabouter]

Personally I'd be kind of jealous of anyone, man or woman, who gets to be the housespouse (out of choice of course) since that means way more time seeing the kids. I keep getting told they're grown before you know it. Might get annoyed with them but they're not going to be cute and little forever and a career seems to kind overshadow that sometimes.

Being as insecure as I am, I could never be a househusband, I would want to remain economically independent always.

[echoshifting]

Personally I'd be kind of jealous of anyone, man or woman, who gets to be the housespouse (out of choice of course) since that means way more time seeing the kids. I keep getting told they're grown before you know it. Might get annoyed with them but they're not going to be cute and little forever and a career seems to kind overshadow that sometimes.

Sad but true. I played househusband for the first six months while my wife went back to work. I think it was harder, hearing directly from me all the little things she was missing. It's easier to keep it in perspective when both partners have things to do during the day, in my opinion.

I'm trying to formulate a response to the central question of this thread, but it's a hard issue to talk about, simply because I'm not sure where to begin. On that note, the guy code will probably suppress certain perspectives right here in real time ;p

[Devolution]

The only thing I don't understand in the OP is the focus on technology. That toys remark in the top ten seems to be more about wealth accumulation, achieving trappings of success than being directly about technology yet the author continually describes "guys" in relationship to technology. I haven't read the book so is this substantiated elsewhere in it?

He talks about escapism through technology a little bit. Has some pages dedicated to video gaming and porn. Technology is more of a means of avoidance in the book than anything else.

[leadbelly]

Can we really talk about it objectively though? Can we really get a definitive answer?

For centuries women have been made to feel inferior and less capable than men. For obvious reasons feminist ideology resonates quite pertinently with women. Women are less inclined to believe they must fulfil a particular role and are less likely to agree with traditional views and values.

Men don't have this. We're just left to our own devices and I guess grasp to old guidance that is perhaps now a bit outdated.

I think there is an element of truth in those traditional views of masculinity. Tribes since time Immemorable have been waring with neighbouring tribes. It is aboout protecting the group, making sure we have the food and resources; the land in which we are able to flourish and multiply. If you observe other animals, other primates, we see elements of their nature comparable to ours. We only have other animals to compare ourselves by, and nature is actually quite cruel in a lot of ways. That's the thing you see. We question that behaviour because we have gone beyond mere impulses and look outside of it. We judge certain behaviours as unacceptable or morally wrong.

What if aspects of our nature are simply unagreeabole to us? It is hard to be objective. It is hard to get a definitive answer. We live our lives the way we see fit. Sometimes we do things that we come to regret and wonder why we did those things in the first place. We do those things because we're not perfect. Because we are battling primitive impules with intellect and reason.

We're always trying to interfere with society. Trying to engineer a system, a structure that is agreeable to reason. Of course it never entirely pans out the way intended. It doesn't because every action has a reaction; every decision has unexpected results. So there is never truly harmony, there is always a clash in one way or another, whether large or subtle. It may be apparent to all, but it may also be so subtle it is never really detected.

Society changes. Because it is always changing we face new problems. It is changing, yet in some ways human behaviour remains always the same. The change is according to reason. The problems it causes are supression of primitive impulses which have unforseen consequences. In other words, if you were to make a model in which men are to conform. A model which supresses what we may see as negative behaviour types, or more traditional masculine types, we will only try and express them in different ways, you won't eradicate them completely. It is like a dog chasing after a ball. I realised my dog chases after the ball as if he is chasing after prey. He has a big toy that he shakes from side to side. I thought to myself that is like him ripping meat from a carcass. He has adapted to live a very different life, but those primitive impulses haven't been totally eradicated he just epxresses them in different ways.

[Dali]

It's somewhat misandrist in that it suggests that men WOULDN'T be that way in the absence of feminism.

Somewhat?

[Brian Griffin]

1. Boys don't cry 2. It's better to be mad than sad 3. Don't get mad–get even 4. Take it like a man 5. He who has the most toys when he dies, wins 6. Just do it or Ride or Die 7. Size matters 8. I don't stop to ask for directions 9. Nice guys finish last 10. It's all good

This looks like a really interesting book, mostly because neither myself nor any guy I've ever known has presented this type of thinking at all. Apparently it's more common than I had thought. As far as being "lost" in the world I wonder what kinds of male role models these guys have. I am pretty much a clone of my father in how I think about things and have taken many of the same steps in life that he did. His life has been the blueprint for my life so far and without that I might feel lost too.

[Devolution]

This looks like a really interesting book, mostly because neither myself nor any guy I've ever known has presented this type of thinking at all. Apparently it's more common than I had thought. As far as being "lost" in the world I wonder what kinds of male role models these guys have. I am pretty much a clone of my father in how I think about things and have taken many of the same steps in life that he did. His life has been the blueprint for my life so far and without that I might feel lost too.

It gets into that in later chapters how fathers will either shift away from their sons (which leaves them to learn parts of the code from their peers) or enforce the code themselves. He doesn't talk too much about the fathers who don't propagate the code which ironically he himself is a part of, but it would kind of bely the talking points he's making and he's already admitted that there are men who do not fit the archetype he's talking about in the book specifically.

[brucewaynegretzky]

It gets into that in later chapters how fathers will either shift away from their sons (which leaves them to learn parts of the code from their peers) or enforce the code themselves. He doesn't talk too much about the fathers who don't propagate the code which ironically he himself is a part of, but it would kind of bely the talking points he's making and he's already admitted that there are men who do not fit the archetype he's talking about in the book specifically.

This is beginning to sound like he's not really describing anything about men generally but rather mentioning enough random personality traits that are moderately common so that people who read it can say either "You know I DO have a lot of those qualities" (men) or "You know most guys DO have most of those qualities" (women).

EDIT: Pop psych will pop psych I guess....

[Devolution]

This is beginning to sound like he's not really describing anything about men generally but rather mentioning enough random personality traits that are moderately common so that people who read it can say either "You know I DO have a lot of those qualities" (men) or "You know most guys DO have most of those qualities" (women).

It's a summary. To see how deep the rabbit hole goes you have to read the book. I can't just type up everything.

EDIT: Pop psych will pop psych I guess....

Many studies are mentioned as well as his own that he conducted while writing said book. What's the point of even posting if you're going to be like this?

[leadbelly]

Men don't cry.

The reasoning behind that seems to be about showing weakness. Crying is a sign of weakness. A sign in which stronger males may exert their dominance over.

In other primates the stronger males exert dominance over weaker males. You could say that is a form of bullying. The cruelty of nature you see.

[Devolution]

Men don't cry. The reasoning behind that seems to be about showing weakness. Crying is a sign of weakness. A sign in which stronger males may exert their dominance over. In other primates the stronger males exert dominance over weaker males. You could say that is a form of bullying. The cruelty of nature you see.

Why do you feel the need to apologize for certain behaviors that you think come naturally when we are people driven by choices and emotions? Boys cry plenty then are instructed not to.

[shadyspace]

My advice for this predicament, fellow men: don't hang out with judgmental assholes. It's just that simple.