TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Masculism

Go To

CBanana Tall, Dark and Bishoujo Since: Jan, 2001
#76: Jan 9th 2011 at 2:13:23 PM

Karalora is totally my type but I assume that she'd be pretty upset with me if I did that.

and that's how Equestria was made!
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#77: Jan 9th 2011 at 2:28:42 PM

Its meant as a bit of humour, goodness knows this thread needs some.

Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#78: Jan 9th 2011 at 3:16:13 PM

@Bugman:

Plus it all depends who you define as "kin", eventually someone has to start caring about their city, then their nation, then their race, then their planet as if they were kith and kin.

Riiiight. I know people mouth that as a pious sentiment (which raises the question of "if there's no God, how is piety rational?"), but in reality, Dunbar's number would prevent an individual from caring about everyone on earth as though they were a brother or sister even if we weren't genetically programmed for kin altruism, not generic altruism.

Not saying that Alturism is a constant fixture in humanity, just saying that it can happen.

Right, it can be socially constructed. Elites can teach people that God or the gods demand altruism from them.

@Karalora:

Apparently unlike you, I believe that most men, similar to most women, will find that—even if not constrained—they gain more benefit from cooperating with others, treating them with respect, and thereby gaining allies, than from stomping all over everyone and making enemies.

Except there are many situations where the most utility comes from being able to get away with cheating a system in which others act cooperatively and respectfully.

I believe men are capable of love without having to be specifically taught it in school.

Are you posting from a parallel universe where the last hundred years were one long communal lovefest?

It boggles my mind that so many people think feminists hate men when we're not the ones claiming that they are fundamentally ruled by their gonads and must be forcibly restrained from abusing women.

All I'm claiming are empirical facts about well-documented human societies. The Yanomamo see nothing wrong with raiding neighboring villages and gang raping the women captured. Under Hindu law, carrying a woman off and raping her was #7 out of 8 ways to acquire a wife (mutual consent of a young man and woman being slightly higher at #5). Homer did not see rape as unethical (Agamemnon's crime at the beginning of The Iliad is not making Chryseis a sex slave, but insulting a priest of Apollo). The Pagan Latins saw rape as unethical, but shame was shared equally by the aggressor and the victim, who had to commit suicide like Lucretia to redeem her virtue. Who was it who finally came along and argued forcefully that rape is inherently evil and all fault belongs with the aggressor while the victim is innocent? St. Augustine, in the first chapter of The City of God.

@Black:

If empathy for non-kin was entirely socially constructed, we would not be able to form a society to socially construct them.

You need at least a minimum amount of empathy to not stab someone and take their stuff. Clearly since we have society right now, people in the past had enough empathy to sit down and form a society.

Society was never formed by humans. We evolved from social apes. And society in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation (EEA) consisted of kin-based bands. Kin selection is a well-documented phenomenon in evolutionary biology.

As to larger societies based on relations between non-kin, they seem to originate in the exploitation of one kin group by another.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#79: Jan 9th 2011 at 3:30:40 PM

Whose saying individual humans, I am meaning something more akin to "post-human" individual and if not actually being concerned with the entire world then... how to put this... none gittish towards them. Or at least operating on a "well we best all try and get along" idea that goes beyond simple kinship.

And even if we are "genetically programmed" for it, it does not mean we are not beings capable of ignoring or operating under different programming, something which you have not really addressed is the fact that you don't seem to have a point towards masculism's ideals, in fact all of your posts seem to be off at bizzare tangents to this threads apparent purpose, which is a discussion of them.

LeighSabio Mate Griffon To Mare from Love party! Since: Jan, 2001
Mate Griffon To Mare
#80: Jan 9th 2011 at 3:38:32 PM

I would have thought at least some of Dawkin's understanding of it had reached even you Rott, but no there isn't really any innate reason why people will act in the opposite way either.

Well, why don't you explain it instead of just name-dropping?

Hands up, all the dudes in this thread who would rape me if they were sure they could get away with it. Anyone?

I'm sure that absolutely none would. That said, I'm sure you yourself know that this type of poll wouldn't get you any accurate responses, as the responses are coming from a group of people who are friendly with you, and whose names  *

are going to appear right next to their replies. Plus, I'm of the opinion  * that people tend to predict they'll act more morally than they will. If that's true, then people might not even know.

"if there's no God, how is piety rational?"

Because a co-operative society can get a lot more done than a society in which it's every man for himself  *

.

Are you posting from a parallel universe where the last hundred years were one long communal lovefest?

Not totally, but some elements were. You seem to be lumping the whole 20th century together. The last hundred years had its atrocities, but so did the preceding century, and the century before that, and so on. But the last century also gave us an end to racial segregation, Martin Luther King Jr.'s doctrines, which were very much influenced by love, and the Vietnam war protesters, who also acted out of love in wanting to protect the lives of drafted people who they may not have even known.

edited 9th Jan '11 3:42:04 PM by LeighSabio

"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#81: Jan 9th 2011 at 3:44:05 PM

Sorry, its more that I admit to having a poor understanding of it myself, as best I can work out it is that Alturism is in general considered a good thing from a human capacity because it allows more of us to survive than simple selfishness would be capable of. My apoligise for not clarifying it.

LeighSabio Mate Griffon To Mare from Love party! Since: Jan, 2001
Mate Griffon To Mare
#82: Jan 9th 2011 at 3:51:37 PM

Alturism is in general considered a good thing from a human capacity because it allows more of us to survive than simple selfishness would be capable of

Okay, thanks. That, I can agree to.

"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.
Karalora Since: Jan, 2001
#83: Jan 9th 2011 at 4:47:58 PM

Are you posting from a parallel universe where the last hundred years were one long communal lovefest?

Are you posting from one where the last hundred years have been one continuous war of all against all? The actions of a few wicked folks who attained positions of power do not indict the entire species. And in any case, I only said men were capable of love without being specifically taught it. It's just that our society does such a good job of discouraing them from exercising said capability. Because lovingness is so girly, dontcha know. And yet even with that, the vast majority of people do not try to game the system. Most people choose to behave morally most of the time, even when they could get away with worse behavior. Fancy that.

BlackHumor Since: Jan, 2001
#84: Jan 9th 2011 at 6:41:24 PM

Except there are many situations where the most utility comes from being able to get away with cheating a system in which others act cooperatively and respectfully.

Yes, but it's possible to make a society that is cheat-proof, or relatively cheat proof.

As a simple example, be nice to people who are nice to you and cheat people who try to cheat you. That strategy allows you to form a complex society without much worrying about people who go around trying to cheat all the time.

Are you posting from a parallel universe where the last hundred years were one long communal lovefest?

What would history matter? We're talking hypothetical Neolithic farmers here.

Besides, the fact that people can be nasty to each other doesn't mean they're always nasty, or in fact nasty most of the time. If people were nasty most of the time we could not support a complex society; everyone would be trying to cheat everyone else all the time and society would collapse.

What people are most of the time is selfish, which is an entirely different thing. Sometimes it makes perfect sense to be nice to others for your own profit. Or sometimes (in fact often) it doesn't matter either way, and you can support a thing, at the very least as an intellectual exercise, because you think it's the right thing to do.

As to larger societies based on relations between non-kin, they seem to originate in the exploitation of one kin group by another.

But that would mean that they didn't exploit them completely (that is, by killing them and taking their stuff), which means they had some sort of empathy for people besides their relatives.

Any scenario where people care only for their relatives makes us not exist right now. It wouldn't make much sense either: the benefit to your children from killing your second cousin and taking his stuff is probably going to be greater than the genetic benefit you get from having him survive to reproduce, right? Why, then, do we not murder our second cousins?

I believe the current answer in evolutionary psychology is "your second cousin can be helpful to you in ways other than just spreading your genes", but that doesn't apply to your second cousin only, that's everyone outside a certain level of kinship. Which would explain quite nicely why we have complex societies right now in entirely evolutionary terms.

edited 9th Jan '11 6:41:59 PM by BlackHumor

BlueNinja0 The Mod with the Migraine from Taking a left at Albuquerque Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
The Mod with the Migraine
#85: Jan 10th 2011 at 12:20:32 AM

Hands up, all the dudes in this thread who would rape me if they were sure they could get away with it. Anyone?
Where do you live? I'll be right over. evil grin

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
TheGloomer Since: Sep, 2010
#86: Jan 10th 2011 at 10:04:47 AM

Besides, the fact that people can be nasty to each other doesn't mean they're always nasty, or in fact nasty most of the time. If people were nasty most of the time we could not support a complex society; everyone would be trying to cheat everyone else all the time and society would collapse.

Modern society simply represents a formal arena in which we can cheat and be nasty to one another. While we can't argue that all humans are fundamentally bad, it might be reasonable to suggest that all humans are fundamentally self-centred. Therefore, cheating and nastiness are inevitable; much better that they are regulated by society rather than given absolute agency in Hobbes' "state of nature". Society becomes more and more complex because individuals within it are constantly pushing the boundaries to find new room to manoeuvre against one another.

I think that human beings are at once individualistic and social creatures. We may organise and form interpersonal bonds, but it's because we recognise that this is the best way of achieving our own good rather than benefitting others.

edited 10th Jan '11 10:06:47 AM by TheGloomer

Yamikuronue So Yeah Since: Aug, 2009
#87: Jan 10th 2011 at 11:04:43 AM

I love how the one attempting to support Masculism comes off as the most sexist against men.

Because we all know Men are unintelligent creatures of pure instinct who want nothing more out of life than to go around fucking everything with a hole and a little bit of warmth, how dare those females restrict their natural impulses with their so-called "civilization"?

BTW, I'm a chick.
Rottweiler Dog and Pony Show from Portland, Oregon Since: Dec, 2009
Dog and Pony Show
#88: Jan 10th 2011 at 12:39:21 PM

[up] Wait, who was that? Because I'm entirely against it.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#89: Jan 10th 2011 at 12:52:18 PM

Because we all know Men are unintelligent creatures of pure instinct who want nothing more out of life than to go around fucking everything with a hole and a little bit of warmth,

Clearly, you haven't heard of necrophilia.

Fight smart, not fair.
LeighSabio Mate Griffon To Mare from Love party! Since: Jan, 2001
Mate Griffon To Mare
#90: Jan 10th 2011 at 2:36:50 PM

I love how the one attempting to support Masculism comes off as the most sexist against men.

There's more than one person in this thread supporting it. There's me, Commando Dude, and Erock.

"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.
Yamikuronue So Yeah Since: Aug, 2009
#91: Jan 10th 2011 at 3:39:28 PM

I apparently got confused. My bad.

BTW, I'm a chick.
americanbadass Banned from [CENSORED] Since: Mar, 2010
Banned
#92: Jan 10th 2011 at 6:10:36 PM

I'm both a Feminist and a Masculinists ,(in the matter of legal concerns, and rights not gender roles) so basically an an equalitist. Do women have rights problems, yes. Do men have rights problems, yes.

One having more or less issues than the other doesn't make the other wrong or that it should be ignored.

Feminists help Masculinists, Masculinists return the favor.

[[User Banned]]_ My Pm box ix still open though, I think?
Diamonnes In Riastrad from Ulster Since: Nov, 2009
In Riastrad
#93: Jan 10th 2011 at 8:38:26 PM

Or, fuck both movements and start an 'egalitarian' party.

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.
neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#94: Jan 10th 2011 at 8:50:50 PM

Or say "fuck all these movements and think for yourselves without the need for conforming to established ideologies."

Seriously, if the issue is that the feminist or masculist or whichever movement became corrupted, what's to stop the same from happening to whatever new movement we come up with? It's better to just look at issues on their own merits rather than for whatever is the masculist or feminist or whatever approach.

deathjavu This foreboding is fa... from The internet, obviously Since: Feb, 2010
This foreboding is fa...
#95: Jan 10th 2011 at 8:58:51 PM

[up] It's a nice sentiment and probably my own initial response, but unfortunately groups are necessary to aggregate power and create a meaningful influence. Yes, your own ideology is much less likely to be "corrupted" in the sense you're talking about, but it also doesn't have the power necessary to spread/convince others.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.
neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#96: Jan 10th 2011 at 9:25:19 PM

"It's a nice sentiment and probably my own initial response, but unfortunately groups are necessary to aggregate power and create a meaningful influence." - deathjavu

Then have individuals unite on specific issues, not on sets of issues.

Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#97: Jan 10th 2011 at 9:32:59 PM

Neo, I see what you're saying, but I think the key illustrative difference is like an ordinary working-class conservative who supports gun rights and capitalism and the registered Republican senator who uses his ideology as an official platform. One person addressees specific values whereas the other person subscribes to institutional or systematic values. There are feminists and masculinists who operate in the same fashion.

edited 10th Jan '11 9:33:20 PM by Aprilla

neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#98: Jan 10th 2011 at 9:36:02 PM

But just... why bother with the ideology labels like that in the first place? We can't even get people to agree on what qualifies one as a "true" feminist in the first place, and what to one person would be more feminist would be less feminist to another. Why not just say "this is one individual's belief set" vs. "this is another individual's belief set" etc...?

Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#99: Jan 10th 2011 at 9:44:52 PM

"Why not just say "this is one individual's belief set" vs. "this is another individual's belief set" etc...?"

Well, when one person says "I think men need more respect" and another person says something similar, pretty soon you have several people realizing that there is at least some consistency in their beliefs. This is basically how ideologies are formed.

Now I can see the basis for your complaint because a chief concern in combating sexism, like any other social problem, lies in avoiding the kind of zombie mentality that got us to these social problems in the first place. People in power throughout history have set the groundwork for what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. As a result, these meanings because value systems and end up getting ingrained into our culture. Masculist and feminist ideologies are the result of a counter-effort, and this model can be applied to any sort of group-oriented thinking. But again, I see your sentiment because we often end up regurgitating the very same harmful value systems we try to eliminate because we sometimes forget to think for ourselves. It's a balancing act, really. Just look at the capital punishment and affirmative action threads and you'll see what I mean.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#100: Jan 10th 2011 at 10:20:29 PM

Really, why not just do what you want? All right, so in some situations men may get discriminated against. Sorry that is that way. But most of these are partially your fault anyway (committing a crime, making a bad marriage, hitting someone, girl or not) so I have trouble mustering up a lot of sympathy. That said, there are serious issues that it'd be nice if someone dealt with (mostly abuse) although our culture will change over time anyway.

I suppose my argument against it is mostly the same as the one against feminism. I think it's a sexist foundation, and so it's almost impossible to build something meaningful. And really, why not just merge with feminism, call yourself equalitarians or suchlike, and make a movement everyone can respect?

I also have zero sympathy for people who want to be effeminate, but are unhappy they're being Mistaken for Gay. It's unfortunate that being effeminate is stereotypically tied to male homosexuality. But I have trouble sympathizing with homophobic people unhappy that when they express themselves, people leap to a mistaken conclusion that they, basically because of personal bigotry, find humiliating.

edited 10th Jan '11 10:23:35 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Total posts: 156
Top