What am I in for boys?

What am I in for boys?

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stupidity and propaganda, of course.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Massive blue pills.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A few moments that put it above its crowd where it recognizes that the prevailing attitudes of men towards women are cultivated as a response to women's treatment of men. E.g. men feeling alienated sexually because mothers and teachers either don't know how to broach the topic of male sexuality or downright hate it - leading young men to develop sexual appetites in isolation and internalizing that there's something "wrong" with their bodies.
      Or how women in relationships resent men when they show stress or emotion because, since they've internalized that men's emotions are their sole responsibility, an unhappy man is essentially "their fault" and they react poorly/would rather they just shut up.
      Of course if this model of gender relations targets and is upheld equally by both women and men, it begs the question of why you'd call it patriarchy at all, and there's no answer to this since the bulk of the novel is pretty much just

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A noble and well-intended attempt at improving the relations between men and women, but one that ultimately falls flat still.

    In that book, bell hooks asserts that men suffer from multi-generational trauma caused by the traumatized men and women from previous generations. In this respect, she is absolutely correct; a large part of what is considered "masculine," like being stoic / not being emotional, is just the result of psychological damage inflicted on boys during childhood. Also, props to her for calling out women for being perpetrators of this trauma as well.

    Where the book fails is in its naming of the problem and the solution. She attacks "patriarchal men and women" and gives support for "feminist masculinity," and this framing unnecessarily ostracizes men and empowers women in an unbalanced way.

    I would rather call the problem "stone age social dynamics" or something along those lines. The stone age lasted millions of years and we've only been out of it for about 5,000 or so years. It's not enough time to really neurologically distance ourselves from that era as a species, even though technology has changed to such an extent that there's a demand for us to do so.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >a large part of what is considered "masculine," like being stoic / not being emotional
      im so tired of this myth

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you don't think a lot of men are raised to keep a stiff upper lip at all times? definitely was the case with some kids i knew but not in my family.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Stop being a schizo about your own explanations
      It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective that stoicism in men is seen as ideal, it is a sign of fitness that a man is not vulnerable to his own emotions
      Why would something so obviously beneficial from an evolutionary perspective need childhood trauma to be brought about
      But then again, evolutionary psychology is pseudo-scientific gibberish so I don't actually think that's true
      Historically speaking, all pre-Herder societies that have left us any writings have treated emotion in men with suspicion
      (There is a strong strand of modern scholarship on especially ancient stoicism that pretends this is not true, I challenge anyone who believes this to produce a passage from any ancient stoic which views actually teaches the modern view)
      The only emotion I can think of that had any positive view was the kind of sorrow and wrath that you find in books like Isaiah and Jeremiah.
      Incidentally, these are the emotions that modern society wants to condemn more than anything else.
      This is also the only emotion which was seen as being able to be put to good use
      Emotion in women was not seen as good either, it was just seen as an incurable disease.
      The whole edifice of evolutionary psychology collapses when you realise just how differently from us people a few hundred years ago thought

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why would something so obviously beneficial from an evolutionary perspective
        How braindamaged are you? The largest part of our brain is devoted to social functions and emotions. A man unable to respond emotionally or to correctly express his emotions to an empathetic tribe is at a gigantic disadvantage. Hence every man still has these emotional functions.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not really. Men can and often do express their emotions, but women have this significant offshoot of emotionality that they need for childrearing. If it isn't evolutionarily advantageous, then go cry in front of your girlfriend and see how she reacts, no? I thought so. Being highly emotional is just bad (unless you want to become an artist or writer). You're more likely to become depressed and not cope in hard, difficult environments.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If it isn't evolutionarily advantageous, then go cry in front of your girlfriend and see how she reacts, no? I thought so
            *if it is evolutionarily advantageous*

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If it isn't evolutionarily advantageous, then go cry in front of your girlfriend and see how she reacts, no? I thought so
            *if it is evolutionarily advantageous*

            bell hooks called the woman who finds that repulsive "patriarchal" and part of the problem.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it's an evolutionary advantage that I can't properly communicate with other human beings
        Sure it is, homosexual.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Why would something so obviously beneficial from an evolutionary perspective
          How braindamaged are you? The largest part of our brain is devoted to social functions and emotions. A man unable to respond emotionally or to correctly express his emotions to an empathetic tribe is at a gigantic disadvantage. Hence every man still has these emotional functions.

          Lol, I can tell this is an artists' forum. Look how these people react, so volatile! I do love it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective

        So many non-arguments start with this I find it hard to bring myself to read the rest

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >In this respect, she is absolutely correct; a large part of what is considered "masculine," like being stoic / not being emotional, is just the result of psychological damage inflicted on boys during childhood.
      a). Stoicism is much, much more than simply dissimilating one's emotions.
      b). Men's lack of emotional depth is, most likely, not due to inter-generational trauma, and so forth. Men are simply less neurotic than women on the whole, they feel much less positive and negative emotion than women do. But is this environmental, cultural, or simply due to the inborn nature of men? Drawing back to the beginning, I believe it is inborn, as we see everywhere, across thousands of cultures, and across time too. It makes sense, evolutionarily speaking, for men to be less emotional and empathic. But yes, she is right that this is the nature of men, even if she's seriously incorrect about the cause. It has been replicated in many studies looking at the psychological differences between men and women.

      Not liberals, but critical theorists seem to be so apathic towards real and hard data in favour of middling academic posturing, most likely due to their aversion to it as it simply deprivileges much of what they say. Radical feminists, 'anti-racists', and so forth construct such fantastical narratives that one must knock themselves in the head a few times to really believe.

      There may be an element of it that is due to social pressure, but it isn't major, significant, and so forth. It is vastly due to genetic influences.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Stoicism was not being questioned there. "Stoic" is an adjective referring to a state of calm. But maybe it wasn't the best word to use there. What bell hooks points out as multi-generational trauma is more like when a man doesn't allow himself to grieve / cry because he feels this isn't manly, even though it's completely human to grieve / cry (and, in fact, it activates the same parts of the brain related to learning; deeper wisdom could hardly be obtained if we didn't also grieve).

        Men are taught to stifle their own emotions; it's not natural in them to do so. The structure of our brains indicates this.

        >Drawing back to the beginning, I believe it is inborn, as we see everywhere, across thousands of cultures, and across time too.
        Is it? Except all throughout history we see plenty of men playing the role of shaman, mentor, educator, lover, poet, sexual pro, visionary leader — all of which require empathy and the ability to be emotional in the moment.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >a large part of what is considered "masculine," like being stoic / not being emotional, is just the result of psychological damage inflicted on boys during childhood
      I think you kind of just have to be that way to deal with how harsh and uncaring the world is though. Women are privileged in this regard, because they can always fall back on men to be a kind of safety net.

      >wouldn't it be better if everyone was an overly emotional pussy though?
      No, probably not. How would anything get done. How would you survive in the face of disasters and tragedies?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No, probably not. How would anything get done. How would you survive in the face of disasters and tragedies?
        To me, the shark is the most ideal form of life from a Darwinian perspective. The shark swims, slaughters, eats, shits, and produces baby sharks; it has no time, need, or capacity for frivolity, hobbies, or anything else you can think of; the shark is without flaw.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It also doesn't post gay shit on IQfy, maybe you can take it's lead.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >let me tell you how to be a man
    >t. woman

    seems like it's a self-defeating premise and the sort of things that causes many of these problems.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's antipuritan, so it's not all bad.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Threadly reminder that anger and aggression and competitiveness are all emotions

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You’re misusing words way too much for me to let it pass by without a comment. Anger is indeed a primary emotion. Aggression is behavior, speech, or actions which are generally based on anger and manifest one’s anger against the targets of it, but not necessarily always so, it can also simply be used to describe aggressive behavior that harms someone or attacks someone without there even being anger behind it. One can be angry without expressing it as aggression (holding one’s tongue, staying peaceful), or can even manifest aggression in a logical way but without the feeling of anger, just because it’s what has to be done (a split-second reaction of defending yourself or someone else from an aggressor, punching whoever needs to be punched, before you even have time to be angry). Competitiveness is also more like a tertiary/complex emotion made up of several other emotions, or, also like aggression, should be used more to describe a trait or motive that isn’t exactly identical with one clear-cut emotion (but even more ambiguously so than aggression which, for practical intents and purposes, I admit is pretty much tied to anger). The other fundamental emotions it’s made out of could include pride in oneself, anger against one’s opponents/competitors, envy against those who may be better than oneself in the competition, or a feeling of insecurity and dissatisfaction with one’s present state + a longing for a better state that will bring more pleasure, affirmation of one’s pride, or power (from winning the competition).

      I’m basically just being an argumentative Redditor tobehonest tbh, I see your points, and I think the particular criticism of “men not having enough emotions/not showing their emotions enough” is more complaining about the fact that men on average don’t necessarily have the same emotional makeup & expression of such emotions as women do. Which indeed might be right. This isn’t just another old chauvinistic assertion of mine, but like others in this thread partially noted, is suggested by studies showing men rate lower in neuroticism on average than women, are more aggressive, and often don’t have the exact same gushing sympathy/compassion/pity/empathy-response as can manifest more strongly in women (for e.g. small children, cute animals, defenseless victims, or people seen as that, and the like).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        good post

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lust as well.
      Each sex experiences some emotions more intensly than the other. Feminists just want men to experience only the female approved emotions. The main justification is that male emotions like anger and lust are causing problems, but female jealousy is destructive as well.
      Maybe men need to shame women into being even bigger bawds by arguing that they are not open emotionally.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My experience as a man, and with my male friends is that men are more emotional than women if anything. They just tend not to express it outwardly for various reasons.

    Reading Stiffed by Susan Faludi helped me move on from being a stonecold incel partisan to a real human being who someone else might be capable of loving.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *