Yes, this is a dupe but the original got little attention and little commentary from the OP.
Found this video from the idiotic Manosphere commenter "Love, Ashley."
Ashley's insightful commentary:
One of the commenters links to Jackson Katz, who seems to be an "anti-violence" expert, and his video called "Tough Guise."
Further, the first video draws heavily on a book called "Guyland," in which Michael Kimmel singles out white, heterosexual men and their degenerate culture for holding men back.
The problem with these constellations of authors and approaches is it does not understand what exactly is going nor does it proscribe any appropriate or justified remedies.
Understand, as I have observed before narcissistic trolls on RVF, highly narcissistic people do often make salient observations, but rarely if ever make substantive connections and draw relevant conclusions.
I first want to say, people who like and believe this video can't conceptualize of people with healthy, solid personal identities. They are playing a frame control game that is aimed at eroded stronger, but still weak, personal identities of others. Kimmel and Katz don't believe in strength and personal calm. Since they start with themselves, they assume that everybody else must have the same personal deficiencies as them. Old Freudian ideas that masculine men are closeted gay men that want to fuck their father. Weird and outdated psychology - welcome to modern feminism.
The videos observe the wasteland of the modern boy growing into a man. They note explosions of violence, unstable identities and inability to connect with other men. That sounds like a serious collective personality disorder, which I would usually characterize as narcissism. However, narcissism rarely presents as a singular personality disorder. Sounds like many of these boys suffer from anti-social problems and a couple seemed to have some obsessive issues.
As for the boys presented, they never mention anything about personality disorders. Isn't it funny that people who bloviate so much about "harmful thought patterns" don't understand that that is THE DEFINITION of personality disorders. Therefore, there is no racist personality disorder, misogynistic personality disorder or homophobic personality disorder. Anti-social, passive-aggressive, histronic are all personality disorders.
Isn't it funny that the video talks so much about "hyper-masculinity?" In the modern era. A clutch of boys talk very nervously about their self-identity - so fucking hyper-masculine. One problem presented here is that as society devolves and needs enemies of said obvious decline. The "Duck Dynasty" guy that said something something about practicing homosexuals was skewered immediately because he represented an incredibly easy and threatening target: a family man from tradition with a solid personal identity. All three of those concepts is incredibly threatening to mainstream identities, as independence, flight from the past and weak personal identities based on social approval are in vogue today.
Of course, is the implicit female superiority presented. Women start from themselves and part of collective female identity is that they have superior relational skills, with friends, family and romantic partners. This isn't true because the constellation of reality TV shows, etc. all know that women are worse at relationships than men.
Still, this stubbornly persistent belief bleeds over into discussions of masculinity. Women pretend that men don't communicate with one another or if they do, it isn't in an honest or effective way. We see the ridiculous multiplicity of crossed wires on the Left, as they dispute the fact that women speak more than men. It's equal or men talk more. But, men don't talk about what they truly want to talk about, just engaging in conversation to prop up their identity or maintain appearances. See the projection here?
This is also a derivation of the concept that "all men are beasts." This concept exists in most cultures and -- apparently -- is a psychological construct that helps women explain male behavior they don't understand or violent/abusive behavior males engage in. It shows the biological roots of the female hamster, as women have a tough time dealing with female homicide, child abuse or any other behavior that is seen as originating from men. To be fair, men have unfairly categorized women, as a class, as dumber than men. That isn't true from an IQ standpoint and much more reasonable observation is that women suffer, collectively, from a supreme drought of wisdom.
The other looming issue presented here is what happens when men express themselves. MRA's have long realized what happens when men talk candidly and frankly about what men are feeling. Take Kimmel. In his book "Guyland," he worked intimately with many men, only to treat them, at best, as lab rats of an inferior breed. At his worse, he shows off his true intention - to paint white men as morally repugnant, backwards, psychologically ill and potentially homicidal and rapey maniacs.
What these sorts of people don't realize is THEY are the reason men have so many issues. When feminists and women constantly label men as creepy, rapey, etc. all they do is place a damper on more honest exchanges between the sexes. Sure, the idea of a perfectly honest social dialogue between men and women is absurd on it's face, but we could be more honest. Feminism has been complicit in so many things, but one striking is sex and relationships with women - with men as the speakers. Men can't just say that men get fucked in divorce court, but Chris Rock can make jokes about women cleaning men's financial clock in divorce court.
Personally, I see feminists as latter-day torch bearers of old, puritanical ideas about sex and relationships. They really don't want sex to be talked about, but most especially by men. It isn't any surprise that early second-wave feminists thoroughly trashed gay men and treated them like dirt. Of course, they had to educate gay men about misogyny. Because women are men's moral superiors while they kick dirt in gay men's faces and call them worthless faggots. Seriously check out some of Gloria Steinem's early work in the seventies. That bitch HATES gay men. But, now she hearts the gay marriage.
Back on point, these sorts of people who are apparently dying for a conversation about changing masculinity are part and parcel of the problem. First off, they don't realize how much of American masculinity is based on female approval. Second, they don't understand the replacing the wider family unit with government bureaucrats and media is insanely damaging to the psyche of a child. Teachers, TV and social workers can't unconditionally love a child. Further, by the time kids hit the school system, personality disorders are already usually set. If we expand the system -- like Sweden -- and start the governmental intervention as early as we can, after the one year leave, those children all present similar problems later on in life. Inability to handle change, strong need for public approval and a highly deficient emotional life.
I feel they think that if men will just open up and express themselves, that will solve so many problems. Trust me, first hand experience, revealing what lies beneath is often a dumb fucking idea. Personality disorders exist to allow a person to exist in society as best they can. Further, it is a typically naive left-wing idea that if, like we all embrace the equalitarian diversity tolerance then all the plus-good stuff happens. It reeks of an authoritarian approach that assumes others will do for you, instead of you learning to do for yourself and learning to depend on others in a healthy way.
Masculinity isn't the problem, it is the solution.
Found this video from the idiotic Manosphere commenter "Love, Ashley."
Ashley's insightful commentary:
Quote:Quote:
I think men and women could potentially get along so much better if men knew how to communicate their feelings. If they did, I could have avoided so much stress and drama in the relationship and dating scenes. I am a firm believer in the idea of when there is a problem that comes up, communicate it with the person it concerns. Let it out, talk it out, get past it. But since men are taught to “be a man” and not show or express their emotions, there is so much they bottle up in fear of looking weak. When that happens, I sense it and it just pisses me off and makes me all kinds of uncomfortable. Now, there are men I have met who are more open and straightforward and have been able to express their emotions and me and those men get along so much better.
One of the commenters links to Jackson Katz, who seems to be an "anti-violence" expert, and his video called "Tough Guise."
Further, the first video draws heavily on a book called "Guyland," in which Michael Kimmel singles out white, heterosexual men and their degenerate culture for holding men back.
The problem with these constellations of authors and approaches is it does not understand what exactly is going nor does it proscribe any appropriate or justified remedies.
Understand, as I have observed before narcissistic trolls on RVF, highly narcissistic people do often make salient observations, but rarely if ever make substantive connections and draw relevant conclusions.
I first want to say, people who like and believe this video can't conceptualize of people with healthy, solid personal identities. They are playing a frame control game that is aimed at eroded stronger, but still weak, personal identities of others. Kimmel and Katz don't believe in strength and personal calm. Since they start with themselves, they assume that everybody else must have the same personal deficiencies as them. Old Freudian ideas that masculine men are closeted gay men that want to fuck their father. Weird and outdated psychology - welcome to modern feminism.
The videos observe the wasteland of the modern boy growing into a man. They note explosions of violence, unstable identities and inability to connect with other men. That sounds like a serious collective personality disorder, which I would usually characterize as narcissism. However, narcissism rarely presents as a singular personality disorder. Sounds like many of these boys suffer from anti-social problems and a couple seemed to have some obsessive issues.
As for the boys presented, they never mention anything about personality disorders. Isn't it funny that people who bloviate so much about "harmful thought patterns" don't understand that that is THE DEFINITION of personality disorders. Therefore, there is no racist personality disorder, misogynistic personality disorder or homophobic personality disorder. Anti-social, passive-aggressive, histronic are all personality disorders.
Isn't it funny that the video talks so much about "hyper-masculinity?" In the modern era. A clutch of boys talk very nervously about their self-identity - so fucking hyper-masculine. One problem presented here is that as society devolves and needs enemies of said obvious decline. The "Duck Dynasty" guy that said something something about practicing homosexuals was skewered immediately because he represented an incredibly easy and threatening target: a family man from tradition with a solid personal identity. All three of those concepts is incredibly threatening to mainstream identities, as independence, flight from the past and weak personal identities based on social approval are in vogue today.
Of course, is the implicit female superiority presented. Women start from themselves and part of collective female identity is that they have superior relational skills, with friends, family and romantic partners. This isn't true because the constellation of reality TV shows, etc. all know that women are worse at relationships than men.
Still, this stubbornly persistent belief bleeds over into discussions of masculinity. Women pretend that men don't communicate with one another or if they do, it isn't in an honest or effective way. We see the ridiculous multiplicity of crossed wires on the Left, as they dispute the fact that women speak more than men. It's equal or men talk more. But, men don't talk about what they truly want to talk about, just engaging in conversation to prop up their identity or maintain appearances. See the projection here?
This is also a derivation of the concept that "all men are beasts." This concept exists in most cultures and -- apparently -- is a psychological construct that helps women explain male behavior they don't understand or violent/abusive behavior males engage in. It shows the biological roots of the female hamster, as women have a tough time dealing with female homicide, child abuse or any other behavior that is seen as originating from men. To be fair, men have unfairly categorized women, as a class, as dumber than men. That isn't true from an IQ standpoint and much more reasonable observation is that women suffer, collectively, from a supreme drought of wisdom.
The other looming issue presented here is what happens when men express themselves. MRA's have long realized what happens when men talk candidly and frankly about what men are feeling. Take Kimmel. In his book "Guyland," he worked intimately with many men, only to treat them, at best, as lab rats of an inferior breed. At his worse, he shows off his true intention - to paint white men as morally repugnant, backwards, psychologically ill and potentially homicidal and rapey maniacs.
What these sorts of people don't realize is THEY are the reason men have so many issues. When feminists and women constantly label men as creepy, rapey, etc. all they do is place a damper on more honest exchanges between the sexes. Sure, the idea of a perfectly honest social dialogue between men and women is absurd on it's face, but we could be more honest. Feminism has been complicit in so many things, but one striking is sex and relationships with women - with men as the speakers. Men can't just say that men get fucked in divorce court, but Chris Rock can make jokes about women cleaning men's financial clock in divorce court.
Personally, I see feminists as latter-day torch bearers of old, puritanical ideas about sex and relationships. They really don't want sex to be talked about, but most especially by men. It isn't any surprise that early second-wave feminists thoroughly trashed gay men and treated them like dirt. Of course, they had to educate gay men about misogyny. Because women are men's moral superiors while they kick dirt in gay men's faces and call them worthless faggots. Seriously check out some of Gloria Steinem's early work in the seventies. That bitch HATES gay men. But, now she hearts the gay marriage.
Back on point, these sorts of people who are apparently dying for a conversation about changing masculinity are part and parcel of the problem. First off, they don't realize how much of American masculinity is based on female approval. Second, they don't understand the replacing the wider family unit with government bureaucrats and media is insanely damaging to the psyche of a child. Teachers, TV and social workers can't unconditionally love a child. Further, by the time kids hit the school system, personality disorders are already usually set. If we expand the system -- like Sweden -- and start the governmental intervention as early as we can, after the one year leave, those children all present similar problems later on in life. Inability to handle change, strong need for public approval and a highly deficient emotional life.
I feel they think that if men will just open up and express themselves, that will solve so many problems. Trust me, first hand experience, revealing what lies beneath is often a dumb fucking idea. Personality disorders exist to allow a person to exist in society as best they can. Further, it is a typically naive left-wing idea that if, like we all embrace the equalitarian diversity tolerance then all the plus-good stuff happens. It reeks of an authoritarian approach that assumes others will do for you, instead of you learning to do for yourself and learning to depend on others in a healthy way.
Masculinity isn't the problem, it is the solution.