TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Masculinity in the U.S. and the World
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter ...it is my experience that having a small number of close friends is overwhelmingly more satisfying than having a large group of friends who you don't really know that well.

If you really believe that, then why do you post in COR?

In general I find your sentiments very noble and justified, however, I have a problem with your determination to seperate emotions from reasoning: Having emotions, and exercising them at a regular basis/being "in touch" with them, gives you an advantage in many situations where you are interacting with another human being.
Other people let their emotions decide many of their actions, including their reactions to your actions. So if you have little understanding of how feelings and actions interact, because you have supressed this link in yourself for ages, you cannot predict others responses to your actions as well as if you had this understanding. You're not getting efficient communication when dealing with "normal" people.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic If you really believe that, then why do you post in COR?

I post in the COR because it's sometimes amusing. I have no problem with the people there, but I wouldn't call them friends. And I can't say there are too many of them that I'd be interested in actually meeting or spending time with.

quote:

In general I find your sentiments very noble and justified, however, I have a problem with your determination to seperate emotions from reasoning: Having emotions, and exercising them at a regular basis/being "in touch" with them, gives you an advantage in many situations where you are interacting with another human being. Other people let their emotions decide many of their actions, including their reactions to your actions. So if you have little understanding of how feelings and actions interact, because you have supressed this link in yourself for ages, you cannot predict others responses to your actions as well as if you had this understanding. You're not getting efficient communication when dealing with "normal" people.

It is my experience (from much earlier in my life) that I was never similar enough to most other people emotionally to predict or understand other people's emotional behaviors to begin with. Although this is a personal deficiency I've made attempts to overcome, I've been largely unsuccessful in my attempts to consistently understand irrational human behavior. It has been a problem for me in the past and will continue to be a problem in the future. However, because of my "unusual" personality I do not believe that the experience of reasoning emotionally will provide any significant help.

Instead, I've taken the approach of attempting to identify patterns in the emotional behavior of other people. It is a very challenging undertaking since there exists no reliable way to "measure" emotions or control for other variables. Further complicating the issue is that I tend to gravitate towards individuals who themselves are unusual in a variety of ways. Many of these individuals exhibit patterns of behavior that do not correlate with more general observations that I've made.

For the most part, I've tried to compensate for my lack of "empathy" or understading of other people's emotions by simply explaining my situation to the people I spend time with and asking for them to do their best to communicate with me in literal and unambiguous ways rather than assuming that I will be able to predict or understand their emotional state. Although this does place somewhat of a burden upon them, I've found that most people are receptive to this request and in fact that some people actually appreciate the fact that I'm genuinely interested in a deeper understanding how they think and feel.

Obviously, good and honest communication is key to my relationships with other individuals, even more so than it is between two typical individuals. Because I lack the intuitive understanding of their emotional states and also do not particularly understand many aspects of social ritual, it is necessary to compensate with substantial one-on-one conversation to "fill in the gaps" so to speak. It is of course a work in progress, but I'm fairly satisfied with the progress I've made. It is my hope that I will eventually reach a point at which I can operate with an average or above-average understanding of other people's emotional behavior while maintaining my seperation of emotion and rationality.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter That is corred, I don't need anyone else. Human social relationships are highly desirable in that they open up a large amount of opportunities for satisfying experiences. However if I were to remove myself from my social relationships, there would be no particularly catastrophic consequences. Therefore, it would be appropriate to categorize it as a "want" rather than a "need."

That's true, you can be completely independent, but rationally, that's not a desirable behaviour.

First because we're limited by our senses, an this fact alone makes independent living undesirable. The more people you have around you, the more different approaches to reality you can analyse through either conversation or mere observation and you'd never have the chance of being pointed out wrong by someone, which can give a false sensation of being correct for absence of known flaws. Besides, no matter how logical someone's action are, they end up being quite useless in the world we live for all we have is - sorry for the cliche - a physical and a psychological world. A physical world for blatantly obvious reasons, and a psychological world because no human being is able to comprehend/absorb more than his body is able to experience so we live in a world full of flaws that happen out of ignorance.

These discussions always tend to get cloudy and unfocused, so I will try to make my points clear and as concise as possible.

quote:

I would agree that [individualism] tends to cause people to have fewer friends, however I'm unconvinced that this can properly be categorized as a "harm."

Alienation is the harm here. Men are alienated from other men because of the individualism, in addition to homophobia. Alienation isn't good because it prevents males from forming deep, emotional bonds with other males. Is it any wonder why you (and I) have found male friendships unfulfilling?

Also, alienation causes those who are alienated too feel as outsiders of society. Men do worse than women in school, men have higher rates of suicide, and men are more likely to be involved in crime. The roots of these problems is a disconnection with society.

quote:

In any case, I don't see how you can blame the media, given that men around the world were typically far more violent in periods of history where exposure to such media was very limited or nonexistent.

My arguement is not examining the media, but rather the social construct of masculinity. In today's society, however, the media is constantly constructing new symbols, while erasing old ones, and therefore must be examined as it is responsible for the masculine image in society. In societies of old, there were masculine images just as there are today. These images were brought upon in myths and traditions rather than the media. These myths and traditions gave justification for violence, so as long as the male was killing what was believed to be a threat.

quote:

It seems rather counter-intuitive given that women consistently report far higher degrees of stress than men.

That's just it, though. The masculine image teaches men to internalize emotions, and if you have ever been to a psychologist or taken a psychology course (as I'm sure you have) then you know this only multiplies the amount of stress.

quote:

Additionally, I'm not sure of the particular relevance of the "campaign of fear" described in your quotation above to the issue of masculinity.

The "campaign of fear" is relevant, as it is fear that drives the masculine image. The image of the "true" male is something that can never truly be achieved, just as with the "true" female image. I have this quote which I found.

"I have never met a man who didn�t feel uneasy about masculinity, who didn�t feel that in some way he wasn�t living up to what it meant to be a man. There�s a reason for that: Masculinity is a fraud; it�s a trap. None of us is man enough."

@Arbiter: Ok, I see your point, and agree that for someone in your position, there's no gain from letting emotions and reasons intermingle. But, as you got my point and didn't contest it, you must also realize that your philosophy cannot be said to benefit people in general, as they do not share your natural "handicap", and therefore it's not commendable for you to try to push it on to them.

Arbiter, I guarantee that if you live in solitude or disassociation from other ppl you will realize you have an emotional "need" and not a "want."

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings Alienation is the harm here. Men are alienated from other men because of the individualism, in addition to homophobia. Alienation isn't good because it prevents males from forming deep, emotional bonds with other males. Is it any wonder why you (and I) have found male friendships unfulfilling? Also, alienation causes those who are alienated too feel as outsiders of society. Men do worse than women in school, men have higher rates of suicide, and men are more likely to be involved in crime. The roots of these problems is a disconnection with society.

It seems to me that the deduction that alienation follows from individualism is an example of the complex cause fallacy. Individualism only results in alienation combined with the presence of one of two other factors:

1. An otherwise homogeneous group of individuals, or
   
2. the a priori assumption that what is different is to be viewed with contempt and/or suspicion.
   

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic @Arbiter: Ok, I see your point, and agree that for someone in your position, there's no gain from letting emotions and reasons intermingle. But, as you got my point and didn't contest it, you must also realize that your philosophy cannot be said to benefit people in general, as they do not share your natural "handicap", and therefore it's not commendable for you to try to push it on to them.

For the most part, I agree, but ultimately, that will depend on my success in adapting myself to understand other people's emotional behavior. If that disadvantage can be negated by other means, then my philosophy would not be problematic even for individuals without my handicap.

As a general rule, however, the only aspect of my philosophy which I strongly advocate that others follow is to create their own philosophy, rather than just finding one they can live with and accepting it.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Arbiter, I guarantee that if you live in solitude or disassociation from other ppl you will realize you have an emotional "need" and not a "want."

An interesting hypothesis, but unless you can provide some evidence to support your position other than "try it and see," you'll have to understand that I can't take it any more seriously than the religious fanatic who tells me I'll have to answer to God when I die and I'll find out he was right when I'm dead.

Arbiter having read your responce to the worst thing you've done thread, I recon all that stuff about not caring about what people think or needing them or whatever is pretty weak. Why would you care what happened to that girl if you were only bounded by reason? You were exposing yourself to risk by doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Arbiter having read your responce to the worst thing you've done thread, I recon all that stuff about not caring about what people think or needing them or whatever is pretty weak. Why would you care what happened to that girl if you were only bounded by reason? You were exposing yourself to risk by doing it.

I was about to say the same thing...... except I was too sleepy and couldn't formulate anything more complex than "cor blimey"

However, more than what Dervish said, if you're independent, you're not changed by someone's actions, as you do not depend on this person's attitude or behaviour. Therefore, doing something for/to her would be a sample of dependent behaviour, otherwise he would've ignored and moved on. Not to mention that, such strong bias toward (or against) that jury is a form of dependence as well.

Right?

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Arbiter having read your responce to the worst thing you've done thread, I recon all that stuff about not caring about what people think or needing them or whatever is pretty weak. Why would you care what happened to that girl if you were only bounded by reason? You were exposing yourself to risk by doing it.

You seem to misunderstand. I never made the claim that I don't care what other people think. I do, I simply don't base my actions around it. Additionally, while it is true that I don't need anyone, I fail to see the relevance of my actions in that particular scenario to that assertion. The basis for my actions with regard to the individual in question was reason.

Because I was responsible for bringing her into our organization, I was indirectly responsible for her actions as part of our organization as well. As a result, if someone had to be put at risk in order to ensure justice, I was the most rational candidate.

Furthermore, as I had previously made the claim that those who were disloyal would be subject to punishment, if I were to fail to back up those threats with action, then my credibility among friends and enemies alike would be damaged.

You know you really almost make it sound resonable to fuck up someones academic if not entire life to save face with your friends.

I've seriously lost a great deal of respect for you (which I had alot of actually) on this one, and all this "not needing anyone else" "act on no emotions" stuff too. Seems alot of talk, as lovely as the talk is...

Calling someone a traitor for pulling out of being involved with the type of people who would do that seems smart in my opinion. The only dumb thing she did was get involved in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Arbiter having read your responce to the worst thing you've done thread,

I usually consider myself pretty tough, but this thread really shocked me. Maybe it's because I have spend too long out of COR (and kindergarten), but it seems to me that kids have grown extremely vicious nowadays. Not only Arbiter's story (which is told with impressive cynicism) but some of the other stories as well, indicate to me that something is terribly wrong with the way US kids behave. I hope that COR is a non-representative sample, because it will be hard to maintain a functioning society with individuals who push each other to suicide for fun.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I've seriously lost a great deal of respect for you (which I had alot of actually) on this one

Considering what has been written, I guess he doesn't care about that.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish You know you really almost make it sound resonable to fuck up someones academic if not entire life to save face with your friends. I've seriously lost a great deal of respect for you (which I had alot of actually) on this one, and all this "not needing anyone else" "act on no emotions" stuff too. Seems alot of talk, as lovely as the talk is... Calling someone a traitor for pulling out of being involved with the type of people who would do that seems smart in my opinion. The only dumb thing she did was get involved in the first place.

You are of course entitled to your opinions, although given the low quality of your inferences I can't see why I ought to be particularly inclined to attribute much worth to them.

If you wish to call my actions savage, cruel, or merciless I don't disagree with you. That is precisely why I categorized them as the "most terrible" thing I've ever done to someone. That is precisely how I treat those people who I consider enemies - who pose a threat to my personal integrity, honor, and my objectives. It is only rational to terminate such a threat with extreme malice, not only to neutralize its ability to continue to pose a threat but also to provide an example for other potential enemies to consider before they choose make obstacles of themselves. I think it is precisely the emotionlessness of this behavior that you find most objectionable. It is curious, therefore, that you would attempt to categorize it as emotional - although not surprising that you wouldn't support such a conclusion with any evidence whatsoever.

Unwarranted sympathies aside, she was by definition a traitor. She had made a conscious commitment of loyalty to a group of other individuals and chose to renege on her commitment without seeking any type of mutually acceptable resolution whatsoever. As a result, a group of people who had reasonably been led to believe she would assist them were unable to complete their objective. There is no question that this meets the definition of the term traitor.

You can call into question the "low quality of my inferences" all you like but you still sound like a nutter to me.

As for saying your actions were "savage, cruel, or merciless" I'm sure you'd like that it'd make you feel strong and not weak which is what I think you fear. I feel sorry for someone who gets to that stage.

Critise me or my opinions if you like I don't care, I don't think I can give what you say any real credence anymore atleast on this.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish You can call into question the "low quality of my inferences" all you like but you still sound like a nutter to me. As for saying your actions were "savage, cruel, or merciless" I'm sure you'd like that it'd make you feel strong and not weak which is what I think you fear. I feel sorry for someone who gets to that stage. Critise me or my opinions if you like I don't care, I don't think I can give what you say any real credence anymore atleast on this.

Well since you've invited me to criticize you if I like:

I think you're a boring, predictable creature weakly lashing out at something you can't understand. It's laughable for you to even speak about credence, given that while I freely provide justification and reasoning for all my assertions you spout incoherent claims and provide no support or justification whatsoever.

And although I must confess that your silly ramblings have provided me with some amusement, I'm afraid that you are indeed a case study for the type of mental weakness I have so much contempt for.

I'm glad my mental weakness is providing you with some amusement.



Yep everyone who knows me comments on my amusing mental weakness.

This thread should be renamed to "Masculinity in the World + Arbiter's mind"

Once she had graduated or completely stopped associating with you, wouldn't she stop being a threat? Besides, she just walked away, it's not like she had ratted you or anything. She was not a traitor - she was a "coward", if you will and such "cowardness" wouldn't be a threat because if she would most likely be enough of a "coward" not to do anything against you... not to mention that, as far as you've told us, the reason why she did so remains unknown. Wasn't damaging her relationship and her school life a bit bang out of order? Couldn't it be related to the fact she had slept with you in spite of being commited, which may trigger a harsher behaviour?

Understanding you is something that's taught me a lot but this time, I'm quite puzzled.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Well since you've invited me to criticize you if I like: I think you're a boring, predictable creature weakly lashing out at something you can't understand. It's laughable for you to even speak about credence, given that while I freely provide justification and reasoning for all my assertions you spout incoherent claims and provide no support or justification whatsoever. And although I must confess that your silly ramblings have provided me with some amusement, I'm afraid that you are indeed a case study for the type of mental weakness I have so much contempt for.

Aw yes...you provide justification for your actions and reasoning to go with it,as to why you must at all costs it seems,protect your honour and integrity and deal with any threats to yourself with extreme malice and you care little for the fact that the individual concerned may have committed suicide later in her life....and you obviously know how this sounds to other people...it sounds cold and calculated....and then you go on about other individuals being boring and predictable with a mental weakness...because they put open to question your reasoning...and of course you have contempt for them also...perfectly rational of course....except for one thing....it exposes you probably more than you would like to people who read these forums...and these same people will form ophinions about you...some of which you obviously cant handle...as for my ophinion of you...cold calculating c**t probably comes quickest to mind....but no doubt i am probably weak also in your ophinion............

Arbiter, you're a pretty typical male in the sense that your attitude and views are highly influenced by the whole i'm-completely-independend-don't-need-anyone macho bullshit. And as a reslut, you're cruel, insecure and afraid of truly caring about anyone else. You really need to grow out of it unless you want to be a bitter old lonely man.

Man, I don't know why you guys are giving Arbiter such a hard time. Mofo is on top of his game on this one. This thread is making me Randy! So many differences becoming apparent, and at so many levels. On one side, Arbiter believes in the individual. He has obviously done some soul searching in his time to find out who he is and what he values in rank order.

Dervish, the fatal flaw, I think, going way back to some original reasoning talking about sociology class and having a Coke, etc., is that you assume everybody behaves a certain way because you likely fall into that group of people. Not surprisingly, when you said Arbiter probably drank Coke, he replied the he drinks what he likes. He is not led around by the yoke of the media that you believe is pervasively controlling us all.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of males who are affected one way or another by the media(and the metrosexual example was downright histarical IMO). On several levels one could compare this to leaders vs. followers, security vs. insecurity, socialism vs. capitalism, etc. There are those who turn to the media to find out what's hip and tin turn, the media feeds off of these people to capture more attention to shape public opinion.

And just because a person believes and lives for the individual doesn't mean that they are a hermit that doesn't have and/or value friends. On the contrary, and as Arbiter pointed out, we are likely much more selective in picking our friends because we seek them out for who they are, not what they are.

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, I just finally read through a good part of this thread and wanted to say that I side with Arbiter on this issue.

However, as I mentioned, that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of men affected by the media other than the ones watching Queer Eye to find out how to be more palatable to society.

Back to the original question...how has the media's portrayal of masculinity negatively affect the male population.

I guess a lot of that would depend on which specific portrayal and what time period. The media is a dynamically changing beast. Images of masculinity have changed with the times. Currently, I'd actually have to agree that the media has been pushing some what of a metrosexual acceptance, softening of the male agenda lately. Does this have anything to do with the pervasiveness of gay and lesbian politics and the gay marriage ban issue? I'm sure they're connected in some way or another.

At other times the media has pushed different images of masculinity. In the 90's, the PC movement was probably a big influence on masculinity in the media, etc, etc. Probably best to create something absurdly far fetched and somehow tie it to the media and big corporations. If nothing else, your professor will be amused.

Shakka, I think Arbiter is being given a hard time, not because of his belief in and adherence to individualism (which I personally admire), but because of the actions he took in order to get revenge on the hapless girl.
Personally, I've never known Arbiter well enough to think of him as a friend, but has respected his excellent reasoning abilities for quite some time. That respect is still there (may even have increased), but today I got to know enough about him to never want to be his friend. I couldn't be close to someone I knew would stop at nothing to destroy my life if I fucked up.
EDIT: Of course Arbiter doesn't care about this last paragraph, I included it as a clarification in case my last post was seen as one of the posts that "gave Arbiter a hard time".

Shakka, the particular action discussed here, other than the original is decribed in Arbiter's post in this thread. What he said here just seemed to be contrastant with something he's said there to some users, reason why the discussion ended up here.

Thanks. I saw that you guys mentioned another thread, but I did not know which you were referring to, as I rarely venture out of this forum. Thanks for posting the link, I'll have to check it out and see if I have anything to add to my previous comments.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.