|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Feb 7, 2005 1:48:16 GMT -5
i think actually, the philosophy in this country is to sacrifice the many for the good of yourself, what that good is differs from person to person, money, fame, money and fame, power money and fame, friends...wait no! :-D
|
|
Arcadian
you people are kinda cool
Staff Sargeant Sniper
My kingdom for a save point!
Posts: 37
|
Post by Arcadian on Feb 7, 2005 17:09:11 GMT -5
Altriusm to the point where you neglect your own sake isn't manly, it's stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 7, 2005 23:08:19 GMT -5
I feel there's a problem here that has a lot to do with misunderstanding what I mean by manly characteristics. A code of behavior for men is not an exhaustive list of what is manly and what is not; the point is the development and maintenance of traits that guide your actions. If it does not reflect on an appropriate aspect of masculinity, than it does not reflect on one's masculinity. There are things that simply do not apply to one's status as a man.
Similarly, what does apply to being a man does not apply to anyone other than a man and applies regardless of other considerations. In example, regardless of being a stay-at-home dad, or being a homosexual, the same rules apply. If you have a penis, them's the rules. There are no mediating circumstances.
|
|
Arcadian
you people are kinda cool
Staff Sargeant Sniper
My kingdom for a save point!
Posts: 37
|
Post by Arcadian on Feb 8, 2005 1:00:51 GMT -5
Oh. Uh. Hm.
All I keep thinking of are things that women can do too.
|
|
PoeticInjustice
more magical than the magicalest
teh cut3 on3's bitch
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Posts: 300
|
Post by PoeticInjustice on Feb 8, 2005 23:07:04 GMT -5
yea, suprising, isn't it? </sarcasm> seriously, there are no absolute rules to being a "man" because that is all culturally defined and varies greatly depending on the society in question.
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 10, 2005 18:15:33 GMT -5
Once again, relativism swoops in to render everything in life utterly devoid of meaning. That's a horseshit sort of response. "Depends" nothing. Either truth, or falsity. Specifics are for cultures to determine, but underlying truth (if there is one; I contest there is) is immutable and universal.
And to reiterate, a masculine behavior does not affect, in any way, shape, form, etc. anyone not a man. So nothing in the male code makes a bit of difference for women, except as it involves them in a given specific circumstance. And since most of it isn't directed even at codes of conduct for acting towards women, it shouldn't concern them much there, either.
|
|
|
Post by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on Feb 10, 2005 21:57:45 GMT -5
well, i guess i'm out of this argument then.
if you eliminate relativism as a "horseshit" response, my view on life, then i can't contend with you. i will not argue against a statement such as "relativism is horseshit." this discussion would quickly become "fuck you i'm right."
come on blough, you know better than that.
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 11, 2005 15:18:23 GMT -5
I fail to see how you can have relativism as a stance on life. If relativism is your view, then you are right, there is no point in arguing anything, because you respond to every argument the same way. There is only one response; "Everything is relative." And that's then end of the complexity, and all there is to contribute from that camp. Another tact must be taken because that blanket response covers everything and deliberately solves nothing. There are no conlusions to be drawn, no resolution to arrive at. It's laisseze faire morality.
If you want your "everyone is right, except you" argument to work - which is what you contend when you tell me it's all dependant on culture - then you need to bring specifics. I will be impressed if anyone can bring up any examples of masculine ideal that do not include Strength and Dignity. You bring 'em up, I'll shoot 'em down, and once we've tested it with enough specifics, you'll understand how broad and basic a code I'm talking about. I'm not inventing anything new, here; I'm just trying to throw things that are already there into specific relief, and by drawing attention to them, emphasize them.
|
|
|
Post by Pike on Feb 12, 2005 3:13:29 GMT -5
Ok well my two cense didn’t work so lets try a few more the only thing that I can see that makes a man a man that can not be argued by culture or religion or any other bullshit is the fact of if you where born with a pecker and where born with a Y chromosome than you are with out a doubt a genetic MAN no ifs ands or buts about it. No Blough if you are looking for a set of rules that makes a man a man than that I cannot give you. I don’t have the years on my teeth to determine what we should or should not follow to what make us what we are or how we act. In the past it was fighting wars and being the head of the family but now I don’t know. I may have one guess and that is (and I know that this is still a hot topic of weather we are pound scum or the best this shit hole universe has to offer.) we still follow a basic animal instinct. The one thing that men no matter creed, gender or even arguably sexuality have done is or lust to breed. Ever since our cave man ancestors dragged women kicking and screaming into caves we have had the erg just like all living males on this planet to reproduce and protect and continue our spices. Man has always and still is responsible for the protection of our spices and yes women have stepped up to the plate but they are not looked down upon if they do not defend their bloodline. Has any man ever been cheered for leaving his family or running form a threat? Now these threats are not always on the battlefield but in the business world or at home. From fat to skinny, strong to weak it is our job to protect our family’s ether with the brute knuckle dragging “man have club use to bash“ Meathead or I have brains so I can build this to defend my family or some where in between. Look at a hick who leaves out in the boonies and is some slake jawed, shotgun touting red neck (sorry country music star) if he leaves his family than he is looked down upon. (And please no jokes about well what if he leaves his aunt for his sister) At the same time a high class business man who leaves his family is also looked down upon. I came up with something that I believe we as men who went to high school can relate to be this. Why do we go to school? To learn. Why do we learn? To get a good job. Why do we get a good job? To have money. Why do we need money? To buy things. Why do we need to buy things? To show the opposite sex that we can protect and continue the species. At no time has a man been glorified who randomly runs around impregnating women and not taking responsibility for his actions. Yes women have come forwarded to take up this task but it will always be the born responsibility for MEN to take care of the family. Weather that may be with one wife or many. A man or a woman. Arab or white a mans born responsibility is to protect and insure the safety of our spices. Now weather or not he chooses to take that responsibility or not is his own choice.
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 13, 2005 2:08:31 GMT -5
Ok well my two cense didn’t work...if you where born with a pecker and where born with a Y chromosome than you are with out a doubt a genetic MAN no ifs ands or buts about it . . . In the past it was fighting wars and being the head of the family . . . protect and continue our spices. Man has always and still is responsible for the protection of our spices and yes women have stepped up to the plate but they are not looked down upon if they do not defend their bloodline. Has any man ever been cheered for leaving his family or running form a threat?. . . From fat to skinny, strong to weak it is our job to protect our family’s . . . it will always be the born responsibility for MEN to take care of the family. Weather that may be with one wife or many. A man or a woman. Arab or white a mans born responsibility is to protect and insure the safety of our spices. Now weather or not he chooses to take that responsibility or not is his own choice. Most of what I've left in effectively agrees with me. I dispute the fact that animal instinct is all there is to it; that is a blatant logical flaw, failing to account for Humanity's successes. Violence forms a significant part of the masculine heritage, regardless of national or cultural boundaries (even equality for women in this is an exceedingly rare curiosity). Strength is the attribute that governs this; both the physical capacity to carry it out, and the disposition and fortitude necessary to see it done. And incidentally, as for this: You, my friend, are blissfully ignorant of popular culture in its entirety. Count your blessings. edit by ben: i said i'd stay out of this argument, and i will, but i couldn't help but point out that there's one great great man who ran around and impregnated far too many women for his own good. name starts with a z...anyone? anyone? ZEUS BABAY YAH! ....sorry to defile your post with my words blough.
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Feb 16, 2005 18:24:55 GMT -5
Aw, come off it, Ben. If profanity was all I needed to shut down opposing arguments, I'd swear more often, and everyone else would talk less. Iff'n you feel that philosophical relativism actually has something to contribute to the argument, than by all means, make the argument. That way, you can stop defacating on my posts! Besides, how better to prove I'm right about relativism than by shooting every argument that arises full of holes? I need a lot more than you and Shane saying "it's dependant on culture" like some sort of blindingly self-evident truth to take the argument seriously.
|
|
|
Post by AeroStrategos on Feb 11, 2006 14:17:38 GMT -5
I want to tell a little story...
Being in the position of being for all intents and purposes incapable of dealing out violence and control I've had many occasions to think on this one. I haven't come up with any helpful answers, but something that happened on that infamous backpacking trip last year made an impression on me:
We were in the boat heading out to the island. It was a nice chilly day, with a good wind blowing off the lake, the perfect start to an adventure. I had a seat in the cabin of the boat, and watched some of the other campers arrive. They came in groups. A couple of the groups looked like they were composed of uncles, fathers, sons - kind of a male family bonding thing, I guess. In one of these groups, there was a man who found a spot and immediately started to bitch about having to pay for a parking pass when this park was on an island that didn't allow cars. With them was a young boy, who found a seat in the middle of the cabin.
When we got out of the bay, we discovered that the wind was really the beginings of a storm, with large waves - 3 or 4 feet high. After twenty minutes or so of being tossed up and down as the waves got worse and worse, I began to have those little musings - what happens if the boat capsizes? I've heard all kinds of stories about freak storms on the Great Lakes, how violent and deadly they can be, and I have far too vivid of an imagination.
A couple of women made their way into the crowded cabin to take shelter and sit down. The only open space was on the floor in the middle of the cabin. One woman had an infant, and both looked very, very seasick. But that was nothing compared to the next woman. She was quite pregnant, and looked terrible. On and on, the boat would lift as it rode to the crest of the next wave, then slam down into the trough that followed it. Eventually the infant began to puke all over the place. A third helpful woman came and helped clean it up, and soothe the child. The pregnant lady just sat there looking at the mother with the infant, perhaps wondering if she'll never make it to the day when she will have her own infant to clean up after. The young boy in the front started to look pretty queasy as well. At this point, I began to notice something - parking pass man was not interested in the boy, or the women in distress. He continued making conversation with the other men in his group, commenting on the waves and such. However, there was a father and son across the cabin from me. They looked calm.
Then it hit me.
If that boat were to go down, right then and there, I knew what would happen. That father and son would risk their lives to see the women in the center of the boat to safety. And if they drowned, they drowned. They could swim, they would use their strength and abilities to see to it that the weaker ones were safe. Parking pass man undoubtedly could also swim. But he would not be stopping to save the young boy with him, much less the women in the center of the boat. He would use his strength and abilities to save his own skin first.
I guess to me, I'm begining to think that a true man is a protector - he uses his strength and abilities to protect and help the weaker ones around him. He can be calm in the face of danger because he has already decided how he is going to face it, and he is very comfortable with that decision.
Then I thought, what about me? I can't swim, not even a little. But maybe my strengths and abilities are elsewhere. Maybe they're intellectual rather than physical. But how do I use them? Do I protect the people who are too stupid to know their asshole from a hole in the dirt? Or do I condemn them in order to aggrandize myself? I'm sorry to say that it is far too often that I do the latter.
So, I guess my point is that it's not about what you can do, it's about what you're doing it for that makes you a man or not.
|
|
|
Post by Drychnath on Jul 22, 2006 22:01:54 GMT -5
Maybe further refining argument could be possible if I better enunciated what I mean when I say to be strong. A man who is strong must have these things: the will to strive and do, the fortitude to endure, and the might to accomplish your intent. In order, fundamentally, of importance.
Having the willpower is most important, for it is the source, the foundation for unwitting strength or the cognizant and deliberate pursuit of it. The choice to act on ideas, or react to circumstances, is founded on will. Fortitude is primarily a matter of emotion and mentality, consisting of the ability to perservere in the face of adversity, such as discomfort, fear, and not suffering from things that are beneath you, such as being hurt by petty insults from a stranger, or easily discouraged by minor inconveniences. Might is simply that - the physical ability to carry out your intended course of action. Breaking the assailant's bones, swimming the choppy waters, lifting the heavy object, climbing the ladder or running to get their in time, all are matters of physical ability.
Without the will, one shall never face adversity in order to achieve a goal, for with no purpose to act there shall be no action. Without fortitude, one cannot continue on through the inevitable slings and arrows of life, and every endeavor shall fail along the way, and no opportunity will be had to complete the task. And without sufficient might, the task will not be completed, and the will to attempt and the fortitude to withstand the troubles therein rendered useless.
Useless, perhaps, but not meaningless - for even a man who struggles and fails, has at least the satisfaction of having striven. He is more manly than one who did not try.
I am considering dumping Fortitude, and expanding somewhat the concepts of Will and Might, but the trouble I keep coming to is the difference between something like experiencing paralyzing fear, and overcoming it (Will), and not being paralyzed by that fear (Fortitude). Every other aspect of it could easily be switched to Might and Will. Hmm...
And, to continue my ceaseless reminders - that these are required traits of Men by no means makes them exclusive to us. Women may freely possess them, and it is no negative reflection on them, or us. Additionally, something like intelligence is a characteristic devoid of sexual implication.
So, to reiterate: These are the traits that reflect on a male's manliness. No other trait is required to make him any more a man. Secondly, this masculine code in no way, shape or form affects any other living creature. It neither binds nor compels women, beasts, or insects. It does not reflect on any other creature, either.
And lastly, this is a matter of what is right, not merely a matter of what is. I'm arguing for the way we ought to be, not the reason for the way we are.
|
|
|
Post by Kodiac on Aug 1, 2006 22:18:18 GMT -5
Well, here's a few yen from the peanut gallery:
To have the will to protect and to help those around you, whether or not they happen to be stronger or weaker. It matters not whether it is possible for you to actually help them, or not, it is the will to do so that matters.
Now, it is not possible to help everyone you see in need, and so I come to the next bit- discretion. The ability to make the decision on whether or not to help/protect someone. This means that one does not offer to take in every homeless person on the street, nor does it mean that you cruise downtown detroit packing and looking for a mugging. It means you help those you can without execessively exerting yourself mentally, physically, or financially, except under certain, extreme circumstances, as in Adam's post. It would be right to try and save them if the boat capsized, as you are already there.
Also, the discretion includes one's behavior. An occasional lapse is to be expected- after all, no one is superhuman, but repeated lapses of behavior (i.e. excessive drinking) are not tolerated.
I think that about sums it up. Now it's your turn, blough, to tear it apart.
|
|