Men, let's stop talking about fuckers like Tate. Instead, lets talk about who/what a man should be.

[elgoucho9]

You're all weak men or you wouldn't be on some druggy forum on the Internet smoking spice fapping over Tates bald coupon.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

There is no one way that a "man" should be.

Humans, like all animals, have varying degrees of sexual dimorphism. Sexually dimorphic traits are simply a set of physical qualities and behaviors that are distinctive/characteristic of a certain sex of a given species. Much of this is a product of sex hormones and genes, and perhaps most importantly, sex hormone exposure during development in the womb as this very strongly influences the degree of dimorphism.

But again while this is a gradient, our perception of a "real man" is based on a maximally, or perhaps near maximally, dimorphic male. So what's thought of as "alpha" or "beta" (or etc) male is to some degree inherent in the human following birth, influenced to some degree by environment.

Those less than maximally dimorphic who are trying to mimick these stereotypical maximally dimorphic traits results in disaffected characters like Andrew Tate, over compensating with their cigar smoking, women chasing, MMA fighting, actively seeking recognition by the outside world that they are now "alpha" males etc, yet all the while simultaneously still exuding a sort of disaffected vibe not seen in those who are indigenously "alpha" males (i.e., maximally dimorphic).

Humans exhibit a low degree of sexual dimorphism compared to related primates and other (extinct) hominids, which usually denotes a more “equitable” relationship between the sexes, regarding duties associated with raising offspring etc

But I think what the op was asking was more socially/anthropologically oriented, rather than biologically…every human culture on the planet has duties associated with being male or female, varying ways to express masculinity and femininity (even if these may be blurred or distorted, or amplified to an absurd degree, depending on time period and culture etc).

Regardless, though, I think that personality traits which are typically rendered as “masculine” (courage, self reliance/independence, ambition etc) continue to have value. Of course they can be taken too far or perverted etc, but humans can fuck up just about any good thing..

 

[phall]

im not sure i agree, let me put this cigar out , knock the missus about and then get down the gym to discuss my six pack for a bit and then we can sort this out. then hopefully a few of u will tell me how much they look upto me before i go out on the pull

 

[TripSitterNZ]

tate is a genius and not a rapist.

Toxic masuncality is a made up topic invented by commies and extreme left to turn men into pussies and enslave the entire world under the communist diactorship

 

[Foreigner]

My view of the ideal man is informed by imagery of the divine masculine or the divine father. The wise, courageous, experienced, adventuring, loving, nurturing protector. There are so many good archetypes to draw upon for men: the king, the warrior, the magician, the lover. The old world (mostly the classical world) has so many good male role models in their religious pantheons, and there's a reason why those archetypes persist in our world to this day. Although men and women can have the same qualities, they tend to be expressed differently. Males and females are not the same. The Divine Father and the Divine Mother not viewed the same way, even though they may have similar virtues. The archetype of the warrior, for example, tends to be male because when wars happen, very few or no soldiers are female. When barbarians come to burn down your village, it'll be the men fighting back. The archetype of the nurturing divine tends to female because, although males provide nourishing resources, women can directly nourish young with their bodies.

These archetypes are embedded in our psyches and are perennial. They aren't sexist and they aren't wrong. They're only sexist when we force people to become an archetype that they don't want to / aren't meant to be. They've existed for thousands upon thousands of years. Children respond to male voices with fear, so men tend to be more disciplinarian. Children tend to run to women for comfort because they have a physical connection to the body that birthed them and nourished them.

Therefore, I think the ideal archetypes of men tend to be: the warrior (instead of the hero), the resource gatherer/hunter/nurturer, the protector from invasion, the wise leader whose experience is informed by past hardships, the sage, the adventurer/explorer, the loyal friend, the builder, the leader, the holy one, the king. There are others.

Interestingly... I think a lot of people's confusion right now could be solved by looking at the psychological effects of hormones. I've been on HRT for over a year because years of chronic illness destroyed my endocrine system. I have experienced low T, high T, high estrogen, low estrogen. Testosterone, when it's too high, definitely turns up the volume on male psychology. Similarly, when estrogen is too high, you see what it's like to be more feminine. It's very clear which is which. Before the decadence of the modern world when science and technology let us try to discard gender roles or become genders we can never truly be, historically it was our biology that drove us to be who we were. I still think that's pretty pivotal. I'm not saying that hormones determine everything but they play a huge role in our life experiences.

I don't subscribe to "toxic masculinity" or other progressive ideas. They are mostly ideas put forth by women/females and are generally worthless because they lack any sort of lived experience. Interestingly, the things that are of the so-called toxic masculine are now the things being projected in the media for "strong women." In woke media, the "strong women" embody all of the worst male traits: arrogance, recklessness, abuse of power (physical or psychological), egocentricism, overconfidence that is not matched by experience, suppression of emotions, lack of empathy/compassion, dominance, entitlement, refusal to seek help (going it alone), etc. When men display these traits, they are "toxic," when women display them, they are "strong, independent women."

If modern civilization ended tomorrow, we ended up back in an agrarian society tomorrow, and big pharma hormones and gender treatments were no longer available, everyone would revert to their biological sex along with the accompanying strengths and weaknesses. Women would bleed once a month and be at risk of dying from childbirth so they'd have to be sheltered again. They'd control reproduction on the one hand, but be less eligible for leadership positions because birthing a child could kill them. Men would have to take all the physical risks because they are stronger bodied, so they'd die more often (which is still a reality, even now). All of the social media fluff of the past 10 years would evaporate instantly. Natural selection would determine the gender division of labour.

Progressive social ideology is a lie. I entertain it because these weak people are no real threat to me. Let them think what they want because nature decides at the end of the day. I only really speak up when they try to control my thoughts and speech -- I won't let them do that. Most of the men I've seen kowtowing to the idea of toxic masculinity are cucks to their girlfriends and have limited mating options, so they have to adopt the beliefs of their women in order to successfully mate. Most of the women I've seen espousing the idea of toxic masculinity are trying to attain social power through virtue signalling because they don't have other strong forms of social currency (beauty, grace, capability, community influence). These are generally weaklings who think the world is constantly harming them instead of trying to fortify themselves. I feel sorry for them. They continue to push their weaknesses onto the rest of society while strong human beings continue to maintain the pillars of survival for society, as well as effortlessly and successfully mate and lead fulfilling lives.

 

[GeorgeWashington]

Have you ever stopped and thought, what would the men who came before me think of me? Have you ever thought that if another man could do a thing, no matter how difficult or dangerous, that you can too? These things are missing in a lot of young men today. If my ancestor could survive in the bush , well i can damn sure take a spider bite, or get a nasty cut and not go to the er. And if they could storm the beaches of normandy towards certain death, well i can stand up when i need to.

The disrespect and ignorance required to come along at 21 knowing fuck all about life and to say everything we have done is wrong and i know the answers.,.come on now. You dont know shit

 

[RyGly76]

I like being a man, it's fun!!!

 

[G_Chem]

I think the simple word of being humble. The greatest men are often the most humble of men.

I also don’t think aggression is necessarily toxic depending on the context. People like the man that can react with aggression when needed but ONLY when needed.

A toxic example of aggression is a guy who’s starting fights at the bar to look tough. A non-toxic example is a guy walking up on someone getting beat by a number of people and evening the odds. It’s all circumstantial. Having experienced the latter on multiple occasions I have zero regrets in throwing fists.

I think it’s something you know it when you see it.

I will say that this whole thing has caused undo strain on men who simply show any masculine traits at all, which is sad. If you have muscles you must be an asshole. I hang in ultra liberal circles and while I’m nowhere near huge/ripped I’m definitely no vegan either and it shows. Because of the way I present I often feel judged simply for being a man. (And honestly don’t even feel that manly myself..) Once they get to know me it’s all good so I just keep being friendly me until they crack

-GC

 

[Shady's Fox]

Show me a public figure who isn't brainwashed..

 

[elgoucho9]

My view of the ideal man is informed by imagery of the divine masculine or the divine father. The wise, courageous, experienced, adventuring, loving, nurturing protector. There are so many good archetypes to draw upon for men: the king, the warrior, the magician, the lover. The old world (mostly the classical world) has so many good male role models in their religious pantheons, and there's a reason why those archetypes persist in our world to this day. Although men and women can have the same qualities, they tend to be expressed differently. Males and females are not the same. The Divine Father and the Divine Mother not viewed the same way, even though they may have similar virtues. The archetype of the warrior, for example, tends to be male because when wars happen, very few or no soldiers are female. When barbarians come to burn down your village, it'll be the men fighting back. The archetype of the nurturing divine tends to female because, although males provide nourishing resources, women can directly nourish young with their bodies.

These archetypes are embedded in our psyches and are perennial. They aren't sexist and they aren't wrong. They're only sexist when we force people to become an archetype that they don't want to / aren't meant to be. They've existed for thousands upon thousands of years. Children respond to male voices with fear, so men tend to be more disciplinarian. Children tend to run to women for comfort because they have a physical connection to the body that birthed them and nourished them.

Therefore, I think the ideal archetypes of men tend to be: the warrior (instead of the hero), the resource gatherer/hunter/nurturer, the protector from invasion, the wise leader whose experience is informed by past hardships, the sage, the adventurer/explorer, the loyal friend, the builder, the leader, the holy one, the king. There are others.

Interestingly... I think a lot of people's confusion right now could be solved by looking at the psychological effects of hormones. I've been on HRT for over a year because years of chronic illness destroyed my endocrine system. I have experienced low T, high T, high estrogen, low estrogen. Testosterone, when it's too high, definitely turns up the volume on male psychology. Similarly, when estrogen is too high, you see what it's like to be more feminine. It's very clear which is which. Before the decadence of the modern world when science and technology let us try to discard gender roles or become genders we can never truly be, historically it was our biology that drove us to be who we were. I still think that's pretty pivotal. I'm not saying that hormones determine everything but they play a huge role in our life experiences.

I don't subscribe to "toxic masculinity" or other progressive ideas. They are mostly ideas put forth by women/females and are generally worthless because they lack any sort of lived experience. Interestingly, the things that are of the so-called toxic masculine are now the things being projected in the media for "strong women." In woke media, the "strong women" embody all of the worst male traits: arrogance, recklessness, abuse of power (physical or psychological), egocentricism, overconfidence that is not matched by experience, suppression of emotions, lack of empathy/compassion, dominance, entitlement, refusal to seek help (going it alone), etc. When men display these traits, they are "toxic," when women display them, they are "strong, independent women."

If modern civilization ended tomorrow, we ended up back in an agrarian society tomorrow, and big pharma hormones and gender treatments were no longer available, everyone would revert to their biological sex along with the accompanying strengths and weaknesses. Women would bleed once a month and be at risk of dying from childbirth so they'd have to be sheltered again. They'd control reproduction on the one hand, but be less eligible or leadership positions because birthing a child could kill them. Men would have to take all the physical risks because they are stronger bodied, so they'd die more often. All of the social media fluff of the past 10 years would evaporate instantly. Natural selection would determine the gender division of labour.

Progressive social ideology is a lie. I entertain it because these weak people are no real threat to me. Let them think what they want because nature decides at the end of the day. I only really speak up when they try to control my thoughts and speech -- I won't let them do that. Most of the men I've seen kowtowing to the idea of toxic masculinity are cucks to their girlfriends and have limiting mating options, so they have to adopt the beliefs of their women in order to successfully mate. Most of the women I've seen espousing the idea of toxic masculinity are trying to attain social power through virtue signalling because they don't have other strong forms of social currency (beauty, grace, capability, community influence). These are generally weaklings who think the world is constantly harming them instead of trying to fortify themselves. I feel sorry for them. They continue to push their weaknesses onto the rest of society while strong human beings continue to effortlessly and successfully mate and lead fulfilling lives.

Best post in the entire thread. I wholeheartedly agree with what Foreigner has said here. Especially the last paragraph you've really hit the nail on the head here so to speak mate.

 

[someguyontheinternet]

I only really speak up when they try to control my thoughts and speech

Controlling thoughts and speech, like say, banning books? Or perhaps trying to force your religion on others by introducing it into public schools?

 

[alasdairm]

Toxic masuncality is a made up topic invented by commies and extreme left to turn men into pussies and enslave the entire world under the communist diactorship

These are generally weaklings who think the world is constantly harming them instead of trying to fortify themselves. I feel sorry for them. They continue to push their weaknesses onto the rest of society while strong human beings continue to effortlessly and successfully mate and lead fulfilling lives.

q.e.d.?

alasdair

 

[Burnt Offerings]

My view of the ideal man is informed by imagery of the divine masculine or the divine father. The wise, courageous, experienced, adventuring, loving, nurturing protector. There are so many good archetypes to draw upon for men: the king, the warrior, the magician, the lover. The old world (mostly the classical world) has so many good male role models in their religious pantheons, and there's a reason why those archetypes persist in our world to this day. Although men and women can have the same qualities, they tend to be expressed differently. Males and females are not the same. The Divine Father and the Divine Mother not viewed the same way, even though they may have similar virtues. The archetype of the warrior, for example, tends to be male because when wars happen, very few or no soldiers are female. When barbarians come to burn down your village, it'll be the men fighting back. The archetype of the nurturing divine tends to female because, although males provide nourishing resources, women can directly nourish young with their bodies.

These archetypes are embedded in our psyches and are perennial. They aren't sexist and they aren't wrong. They're only sexist when we force people to become an archetype that they don't want to / aren't meant to be. They've existed for thousands upon thousands of years. Children respond to male voices with fear, so men tend to be more disciplinarian. Children tend to run to women for comfort because they have a physical connection to the body that birthed them and nourished them.

Therefore, I think the ideal archetypes of men tend to be: the warrior (instead of the hero), the resource gatherer/hunter/nurturer, the protector from invasion, the wise leader whose experience is informed by past hardships, the sage, the adventurer/explorer, the loyal friend, the builder, the leader, the holy one, the king. There are others.

Interestingly... I think a lot of people's confusion right now could be solved by looking at the psychological effects of hormones. I've been on HRT for over a year because years of chronic illness destroyed my endocrine system. I have experienced low T, high T, high estrogen, low estrogen. Testosterone, when it's too high, definitely turns up the volume on male psychology. Similarly, when estrogen is too high, you see what it's like to be more feminine. It's very clear which is which. Before the decadence of the modern world when science and technology let us try to discard gender roles or become genders we can never truly be, historically it was our biology that drove us to be who we were. I still think that's pretty pivotal. I'm not saying that hormones determine everything but they play a huge role in our life experiences.

I don't subscribe to "toxic masculinity" or other progressive ideas. They are mostly ideas put forth by women/females and are generally worthless because they lack any sort of lived experience. Interestingly, the things that are of the so-called toxic masculine are now the things being projected in the media for "strong women." In woke media, the "strong women" embody all of the worst male traits: arrogance, recklessness, abuse of power (physical or psychological), egocentricism, overconfidence that is not matched by experience, suppression of emotions, lack of empathy/compassion, dominance, entitlement, refusal to seek help (going it alone), etc. When men display these traits, they are "toxic," when women display them, they are "strong, independent women."

If modern civilization ended tomorrow, we ended up back in an agrarian society tomorrow, and big pharma hormones and gender treatments were no longer available, everyone would revert to their biological sex along with the accompanying strengths and weaknesses. Women would bleed once a month and be at risk of dying from childbirth so they'd have to be sheltered again. They'd control reproduction on the one hand, but be less eligible or leadership positions because birthing a child could kill them. Men would have to take all the physical risks because they are stronger bodied, so they'd die more often. All of the social media fluff of the past 10 years would evaporate instantly. Natural selection would determine the gender division of labour.

Progressive social ideology is a lie. I entertain it because these weak people are no real threat to me. Let them think what they want because nature decides at the end of the day. I only really speak up when they try to control my thoughts and speech -- I won't let them do that. Most of the men I've seen kowtowing to the idea of toxic masculinity are cucks to their girlfriends and have limiting mating options, so they have to adopt the beliefs of their women in order to successfully mate. Most of the women I've seen espousing the idea of toxic masculinity are trying to attain social power through virtue signalling because they don't have other strong forms of social currency (beauty, grace, capability, community influence). These are generally weaklings who think the world is constantly harming them instead of trying to fortify themselves. I feel sorry for them. They continue to push their weaknesses onto the rest of society while strong human beings continue to effortlessly and successfully mate and lead fulfilling lives.

I agree with some of the things you said here…nevertheless, I feel like you may be downplaying the altered environmental context that humans now live in.

For hundreds of thousands of years, or 95%+ of the total time on the planet, human beings lived in one specific environmental context, that of small hunter-gatherer bands. That’s our evolutionary heritage. Then they started tilling the fields, working in factories etc. So how is a man supposed to realize his primordial identity as a hunter when he lives in Brooklyn? For a long time men transferred this into being a provider within the capitalist economy, being a “breadwinner” etc, but there are no guarantees that this identity will be available into the future, at least not on the same level that it was in the past. You say that there are these archetypes that define masculine roles, but we don’t live in the Paleolithic or even the Bronze Age anymore, so I think that the question of how these roles can be realized in the present day, and within the specific environmental context we live in, is more of an interesting one than its perhaps given credit for

 

[Mjäll]

q.e.d.?

alasdair

That's quite the cheapshot. A descriptor such as "toxic masculinity" would reasonably reserved for actual shit behavior, not mere opposition to leftist ideology and description/acceptance of harsh reality.

This type of complaint is similar to what's been going on in my country: The people that perceive "toxic masculinity" in every white man who isn't a radical feminist are the same people who advocate massive muslim immigration. It's an expression of over-socialization and absurd etiquette at the expense of reality, not actual concern for the well-being of humans and the improvement of behaviors.

 

[Mjäll]

I agree with some of the things you said here…nevertheless, I feel like you may be downplaying the altered environmental context that humans now live in.

For hundreds of thousands of years, or 95%+ of the total time on the planet, human beings lived in one specific environmental context, that of small hunter-gatherer bands. That’s our evolutionary heritage. Then they started tilling the fields, working in factories etc. So how is a man supposed to realize his primordial identity as a hunter when he lives in Brooklyn? For a long time men transferred this into being a provider within the capitalist economy, being a “breadwinner” etc, but there are no guarantees that this identity will be available into the future, at least not on the same level that it was in the past. You say that there are these archetypes that define masculine roles, but we don’t live in the Paleolithic or even the Bronze Age anymore, so I think that the question of how these roles can be realized in the present day, and within the specific environmental context we live in, is more of an interesting one than its perhaps given credit for

Excellent point.

We need to give our bodies and minds the stimulus that we are adapted for. Heavy lifting, lots of movement and a diet that bypasses industrialized conveniences when possible. An individual struggle for something and willingness to endure, but also an interest in mystical experiences and ecstacy. Ideally a sense of cameraderie. These are the main takeaways i think.

 

[alasdairm]

That's quite the cheapshot.

in the context of many of his posts in other forums, i think it's a valid observation but i'll happily agree to disagree.

alasdair

 

[tryptakid]

I don't particularly buy into any pertinent importance to gender roles as these things have shifted, fluctuated, and morphed over time culture and context.

Modern, western masculinity, the context and general society I've been raised in, is about finding purpose and supporting the process of change in a fluid and changing social context. I am well aware of the unearned privilege I'm afforded owing to my place of birth, skin tone, and cocky balls, so part of my experience with masculinity is finding ways to use that to pull others up who are not afforded that privilege. I also believe that my role is in helping men understand how to feel/express the variety of emotional experiences that some men seem to struggle with or feel silenced in knowing how to express. It's important to me that men have role models to look to, and I aspire to be that to those who see value in my approach and thoughts.

 

[Foreigner]

Controlling thoughts and speech, like say, banning books? Or perhaps trying to force your religion on others by introducing it into public schools?

Not sure what you're trying to say here?

The extreme right and extreme left both endorse censorship. You're not really countering what I'm saying by stating that the other side does it.

 

[Foreigner]

I agree with some of the things you said here…nevertheless, I feel like you may be downplaying the altered environmental context that humans now live in.

For hundreds of thousands of years, or 95%+ of the total time on the planet, human beings lived in one specific environmental context, that of small hunter-gatherer bands. That’s our evolutionary heritage. Then they started tilling the fields, working in factories etc. So how is a man supposed to realize his primordial identity as a hunter when he lives in Brooklyn? For a long time men transferred this into being a provider within the capitalist economy, being a “breadwinner” etc, but there are no guarantees that this identity will be available into the future, at least not on the same level that it was in the past. You say that there are these archetypes that define masculine roles, but we don’t live in the Paleolithic or even the Bronze Age anymore, so I think that the question of how these roles can be realized in the present day, and within the specific environmental context we live in, is more of an interesting one than its perhaps given credit for

As Carl Jung pointed out, the archetypes are still strongly embedded in the essence of humanity, even if we have moved into the industrial and post-industrial ages. Humans don't really have a viable alternative to these archetypes. For example... the God archetype. All humans worship something. Even the ones who have discarded religion still have something they hold in higher regard. When presented with something/someone that evokes awe and seems greater than them, most humans can be easily persuaded to follow/worship it. Look at pop culture.

What you've written implies that the archetypes come from the Bronze Age, but really the Bronze Age, and every age, simply project those in-born archetypes into the world around them. Humanity is a species with fixed behaviours like any other species. Yes we are more complex, but our complexity is finite. That's why the archetypes keep repeating over and over again.

Just because a person lives in Brooklyn now, does not mean the hunter/gatherer programming has ceased. Most of our original behaviours have maladapted to the modern world, to our synthetic systems that are really just poor knock-offs of our original environments, creating high degrees of social dysfunction. At least pre-historically, I could go out and catch a rabbit, build a fire and eat it. Now the "resource" that people are hunting and gathering is money. (I'm not glorifying the past, I'm just illustrating our synthetic environment.)

If you take an honest inventory of our society, the most successful men still embody ancient archetypes. The ones going off the rails, trying to invent a new archetype, or trying to adopt an archetype that they are not meant to embody remain weak and low on the dominance hierarchy... which, for some, obviously doesn't matter and they won't care... because synthetic human systems buoy these individuals against consequences. But in the natural world, these men would have suffered a lot more and died sooner. Evolution and natural selection are still at work. No trickity trick of post-modernism is going to nullify that.

Dogs are a good analogy. They all come from the gray wolf that was selectively bred over thousands of years. The strongest dogs remain those closest related to the wolf, whereas many of the more demented breeds, like pugs whose faces are so smushed they can barely breathe, are being artificially sustained by humans. If the world ended tomorrow, all the dogs would vie for survival. The weak ones would die immediately. The strong ones would interbreed and in some generations we would have something resembling wolves again. Humans are similar. Why would you want to be the human equivalent of a pug when you could be more like a wolf?

 

[someguyontheinternet]

As far as I know a lot of Jung's work is now seen as pseudoscientific so I don't know why on earth you would quote him as fact