Masculinity

high natural testosterone

Have another (you) on me, I'm feeling generous tonight.

he's from somewhere worse, user

fucking roasties should stick to uploading pics of their cunts on /soc/

>natural

Strength of mind and body
Emotions only for those that are close
Responsibility for oneself and those that rely on you

How about actually spelling out your problem with the term or idea instead of posting memes and trolling. I'm pretty sure the main issue any guy ever has with the term is that it seems to be saying all maculinity is evil or toxic. that is not the case. For example one could say that l women being catty and putting eachother down over appearance would be an example of toxic femenmity that needs to to be eliminated.

So basically adopt egoism.

That's pretty good actually

Some abstract concept that loosely maps onto human hormonal variation and sexual strategy which gets appropriated and molded by cultures into more productive behavior. It needs to be flexible so that it can be perpetuated in every mode of production, so concepts like chivalry and bread winner become less important aspects of masculinity since they're not as necessary.

Yes if during puberty but having a high amount of testosterone prenatally is likely to just make you autistic
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12039606

The message of the movie Unforgiven by Clint Eastwood is about toxic masculinity, that killing someone makes you tough and manly, all it does is create suffering. It's a fantastic film all around.

While maybe anons don't like his position on race, Clint can hardly be said to be a politically correct social justice warrior.

Toxic
Especially if it's from white men

Taking responsibility for your actions and standing up for what you believe in.

I wonder about this a lot. The Way of Men does a pretty good job of succinctly summarizing it, but there is some bullshit in it I think can be ignored. Short, strong read.

Yeah, that's what I mean. The idea of,the phrase is hypermasculinity is toxic masculinity. Masculinity is not toxic but forms of it can be.

Masculinity is about fucking and being fucked. It may sound crass or base but it is our biological function. Every action is based on this. How we play the game via being macho or beta or a nice guy or an asshole are all just different variations of how we fuck and get fucked. Huntingfor food is the penetration of other animals this was how we lived for many thousands of years and still do. All miltiary is ranked via how many dicks are stacked up. Masculinity is a pecking order of those at the top and the bottom. This is why we have leaders. Masculinity is not evil it is in fact the prevention of it. We fuck the fuckers and the fuckers fuck with our fucks.

The degree of your manhood.

>What's manhood?

Your ability to be a man.

>What does it mean to be a man?

To be a man means you are in tune with your inner king. You dominate over a realm of "subjects" and provide for them, take charge, are confident, have integrity, are able to defend your realm, etc. You are capable of being a warrior or lover when you need to be. You are a deep admirer of femininity but achieving your personal dreams are above women in importance. That's what being a man means.

Ever notice how people obsessed with masculinity are usually right wing and insecure? It's clear fascists were pretty homo erotic desu

Being a man means being wholly dedicated to the Revolution. It means putting a one's body at full service toward the proletarian revolution. It means subordinating yourself to the same criticism you level upon others. It means constantly striving under the Proletarians dictatorship to emulate the best elements of the socialist transition, to be at the forefront of the lower stage, pushing toward the higher stage of communism. It means not seeing oneself as an ideal but rather a piece of a collective striving toward statelessness.

Rightists cannot be men. To be a reactionary is a terrible thing. Dare to struggle, dare to win, fuck boy if you don't reply to this your mother will be killed by the spectre of communism in her sleep.

how about not being a faggot

holy shit lol how can u be this gay

Putting God above one's self.

To be a woman means you are in tune with your inner queen. You dominate over a realm of "children" and provide for them, take charge, are confident, have integrity, are able to defend your domain, etc. You are capable of being a warrior and lover. You are a deep admirer of masculinity but achieving your goals is what's important. That's what being a strong confident black women is.

Memeing aside, being a woman is about being a queen. But instead of dominating, they serve the king, instead of being a warrior they are mothers, and instead of achieving goals as the most important thing, sacrificing themselves to pure love would be most important.

#
#
#
>instead of dominating they serve
Queen bees, Agrippina. Examples from nature and history that upend that notion.
>Instead of being warriors they are mothers
Clearly they must be both, look at a mother bear or Artemis who was the great huntress. They are hand in hand. The goddess Kali who created the world is also the one who devours it.
>sacrificing themselves for true love is what's important
Like Paris sacrifices Troy for Helan? or like how Achilles sacrificed the Achaeans for Briseis? Or like how a black widow spider devours her male mate after copulation?

You're working with a very narrow definition of what it is to be a man and woman.

>Examples from nature and history that upend that notion.
Nothing upends it. A queen needs to rule when the king is not around still, but when he's around, she serves him. Also, we're humans, not bees.

>Clearly they must be both, look at a mother bear or Artemis who was the great huntress. They are hand in hand. The goddess Kali who created the world is also the one who devours it.
The dominant form of energy here is still the mother, not the warrior. Sometimes she needs to defend, but when the attacking stops, the form of the mother continues. A warrior is entirely about the fight.

>Like Paris sacrifices Troy for Helan? or like how Achilles sacrificed the Achaeans for Briseis? Or like how a black widow spider devours her male mate after copulation?
I worded it poorly. I meant as in dedicate their lives to love, and surrendering their entire selves to enhancing their lovingness.

>You're working with a very narrow definition of what it is to be a man and woman.
These are my ideals.

I side with the man calling you out on being from somewhere as loathsome as reddit. To begin an answer with a sigh is to put on an attitude of false exasperation as if you are being forced to respond, as if some bell deep up your own ass is ringing, calling you to come forth from your hidden lair of self-importance to spout something that is overall pedestrian.

Much applause though for, yes, having him prove your point, but no points in the end for being a melodramatic twat and exhibiting this 'douchebagery' that you say is part of toxic masculinity.
Hoist on his own petard, indeed., Which, by the way is a Shakespearean fart joke, which is masculine as fuck.

>Artemis the Virgin Hunter.
>Mother.
Wut.

Your ideals have nothing to do with reality and are far to simple, yet "open to interpretation" so that they seem deep at first glance.

Visit /r9k/ and ask how they view masculinity. That'd be a laugh.

You really need to look in a mirror, mate.
And stop jacking off to yourself.

Not taking shit from bitchboys who haven't done anything.
wanting to kill
being tough

Being able to withstand hardships

A spook

You are wise.

masgulinidy = benis :DD
feminidy = bagina XDDDDD

I'm not your mate, pal.

your sex has nothing to do with it. what defines "masculinity" is all cultural.

>Your ideals have nothing to do with reality
Brilliant insight there.

My ideals are shared with many, however. Men as kings, warriors, and lovers, women as queens, mothers, and lovers — nothing is out of the ordinary here. Simple enough to be wide reaching but narrow enough to fit a specific worldview.

It all comes back to our physiological differences. A man or woman can change their diet and lifestyle enough so that a man can have a very soft, weak body or a woman a very bulky and muscular body, but that doesn't change the fact that the man fills a woman's hole with his appendage and the woman is the one with the womb and a monthly cycle. One fills / gives during sex, the other is filled / receives during sex, nourishes a child for 9 months inside herself, and is affected for at least 2-3 days every month by pain in their crotch. It has seemed common sense to humanity for thousands of years then that men should be the stronger of the two, bred for combat, while the women should be soft, dainty, ready to be kind and nourishing to children, living a more relaxed life in order to tend to the home.

>seemed common sense
Because most production required fairly intensive physical labour so women were not able to seriously contribute economically.
Nowadays a woman can actually match fairly high status men in terms of productivity, and socially conditioning them towards the feminine role can actually be a handicap on that potential.

A spook.

>"toxic masculinity" isn't saying that masculinity is inherently toxic and fuck men for existing

Yeah, it pretty much is, because you can't just pick and choose which part of people's identity you find useful and trash the rest.

Unlike what people like you think, the same kind of masculinity that can cause a man to pick a fight or rape his wife, is the same kind of masculinity that rescues a woman from a burning building, or goes to war for his country.

It is of course uncomfortable for people like you to realize that though, which is why you call it "toxic masculinity".

Which explains why we're slowly headed towards androgyny.

And like all transformations that mix opposites, we are going to lose an immense amount of strong values in the process, but gain some new ones. And with new values, there arises new opposites, and the cycle continues.

But we're not ready to abandon those traditional male/female models yet. Women still need to give birth. Once they aren't needed for that anymore (technology will make that function obsolete eventually), all that will be left holding up those traditional models is reactionary movements and healthy men and women who are still strongly inclined towards those models due to their upbringing. And it's possible due to how popular it is to be inclined towards them that the majority will NEVER be ready to gravitate towards androgyny. A society would kind of have to start over, isolate itself from traditional values and be founded on the new ones from scratch in order to make it happen then.

Well I think that we won't head much towards androgyny. As soon as enough people become androgynous, the amount of people who are more traditionally inclined will dwindle and the demand for their traits will increase. There's probably a sort of equilibrium in which most males and females are traditionally-oriented while a smaller section of both is more uniform in their traits.

Not him but, we're never going to lose the traditional male/female models, especially not the fact that women are by and large attracted to masculine men, whatever they tell pollsters or their feminist professor.

I mean, Fifty Shades of Grey was the fastest selling book in the history of books; think about that for a second, a pornographic novel about a hyper-masculine alpha male who essentially forces himself on a virgin female, is literally still a woman's deepest fantasy.

>It merely admonishes forms of hyper masculinity and douchebagery
Then call it douchebaggery and being a dick, everyone knows assholes who do all that shit are dicks. And said assholes can come in the for of men or women. Blaming it on "hypermasculinity" like your tossing the blame all on masculinity or men and labeling it as that when it's not is disingenuous, misleading and stupid; and makes you sound like and SJW meme spouting retard

>And stop jacking off to yourself.
He right and your the only pretentious faggot jacking off to yourself

>I mean, Fifty Shades of Grey was the fastest selling book in the history of books; think about that for a second, a pornographic novel about a hyper-masculine alpha male who essentially forces himself on a virgin female, is literally still a woman's deepest fantasy.

I don't think that's necessarily true. It was literally a meme novel that blew up because everyone was talking about "how naughty those kinky females can be" buying that crap. Every single woman I've talked to that read it said they did is simply because of the hype surrounding it, and that it wasn't particularly sexually exciting.

Pointing to that novel as the epitome of female sexual fantasy is anecdotal at best, actual research on female sexuality is pretty scarce.

It's extremely unlikely, but still possible. The change just needs to be deliberately initiated by someone with enough power when technology has made it plausible enough.

Also, if we're going to use fiction as an indication of what people's desires are, there are also a lot of androgynous races in fantasy — elves almost in their entirety are this. There's been an imagination of this "morally superior androgynous race" in fantasy for some time now. But I completely agree that we are not even close to moving away from those traditional gender models because they are still in our subconscious, almost stronger than ever. The concept that the absence of those values makes demand for them stronger is also reasonable but is what makes up the movement called the reactionaries, which is nostalgia and a sign of degeneration.

Not him, but Twilight is probably a better example of female sexual fantasy. Men as supernaturally powerful beasts with hundreds of years of knowledge that want to be tamed by a young mortal woman.

>and socially conditioning them towards the feminine role can actually be a handicap on that potential.
>socially conditioning
This leaves out the factor of choice which many women do
>Which explains why we're slowly headed towards androgyny.
>But we're not ready to abandon those traditional male/female models yet. Women still need to give birth. Once they aren't needed for that anymore (technology will make that function obsolete eventually), all that will be left holding up those traditional models is reactionary movements and healthy men and women who are still strongly inclined towards those models due to their upbringing. And it's possible due to how popular it is to be inclined towards them that the majority will NEVER be ready to gravitate towards androgyny. A society would kind of have to start over, isolate itself from traditional values and be founded on the new ones from scratch in order to make it happen then.
And were never going to abandon them. Society and women will always need men to to the heavy lifting, do the jobs nobody else wants, innovate and fix things and clean up when shit hits the fan
>judgybitch.com/2013/09/17/what-would-happen-if-no-men-showed-up-for-work-today/

Your are making a false equivalence and proving you know nothing about false rape accusations. I'm also having a hard time taking you seriously and believing you're not a troll if this is how your responding shit that actually ruins people's lives

>Society and women will always need men to to the heavy lifting, do the jobs nobody else wants, innovate and fix things and clean up when shit hits the fan
Until we have robots to do these things.

>Also, if we're going to use fiction as an indication of what people's desires are

It's not just any fiction though. It's a book series that has sold 125 million copies, and that's pretty insane where literally pornographic novels go.

Middle-Earth has sold 150 million copies overall, and that's not the only high selling fiction with androgynous looking races.

LOTR is literally just a subconscious desire for the metaphysics of Christianity not to be annihilated.

>Elves.
>Androgynos.
I dunno what crap fantasy novel have you read but Tolkien elves weren't androginos at all, at the contrary. Feanor was consuemd be his thumos for example, had a fuckton of sons, made shit not even gods could make etc. In Tolkien at leastThey are more akin to super men in an Apollonian way.

>Until we have robots to do these things.
Robots doing all of that is still a long way away. And even now when we do have robots doing things men are still crucial to doing all of what I posted above. The people who will design, build, fix and maintain those robots will also most likely be majoritarily male, the same ones that are responsible for doing so now.

Well appearances come first in my opinion. Maybe androgynous values aren't there yet, but their image is still very popular.

>Your ideals have nothing to do with reality
The entire point of ideals is to show what an ideal reality would look like. They're meant to depict the best of humanity of an improved concept

>seven foot tall men with beautiful chiseled features who were described with arms like tree limbs look kinda skinny compared to smaller stocky humans due to proportions.
>androgynous

Androgynous elves are a weeb thing vaguely inspires by tolkein.

I disagree, not for being bigger, hairier or have a deepest voice or larger dick makes you manlier, you only appear so. Self control, how you deal with shit and that kind of stuff makes a man truly Masculine, in my opinion.

>Unlike what people like you think, the same kind of masculinity that can cause a man to pick a fight or rape his wife, is the same kind of masculinity that rescues a woman from a burning building, or goes to war for his country.
How so.

They have long hair like the females and are very fair featured (light hair, glowing pale skin). It's a step, albeit small towards an androgynous imagination. Japan takes it to the extreme but they're just driving the hidden conclusion home, mostly because they lack the Christian influence (hence why they often interpret God as the gnostic demiurge).

>This leaves out the factor of choice which many women do

I mean by now it's pretty acknowledged that women choose to work less specifically because of gestating and raising a small child. It's definitely not just a socially conditioned response to want that, but it isn't for every single female. I think it's unreasonable to treat them all uniformally with that expectation. They need to have the flexibility to be able to pursue other trajectories as well, same with boys.

>And were never going to abandon them. Society and women will always need men to to the heavy lifting, do the jobs nobody else wants, innovate and fix things and clean up when shit hits the fan

To some degree that is true, but it's already obvious that the requirement for masculinity is much less than it has been in the past simply because of more efficient technologies. Less jobs in intensive labour and more jobs with technology and services means physical power is not as valuable as it used to be.
Even in terms of defense, conflict is not as imminent and having a protector isn't as necessary as it was before. If you're that worried about yourself you can just buy a gun.
I could see that trend continuing into the future assuming some disaster doesn't happen.

And innovating is not purely a male thing, the main requirement for it is Openness and intellect which plenty of women have.
Men do have an edge there, but it's not impossible for women.

I don't doubt that we will continue having a fairly significant male/female division but it's reasonable to assume the requirement for more extreme masculinity will diminish

A spook.

no it's fucking not

Explain yourself my little macho friend then.

Partly yes, as the way it is expressed in a given society is culturally conditioned. That being said testosterone has clear effects on behavior, thought, emotions, physical strength and bone density. The way a given culture defines masculinity always refers to those features so masculinity is not completely culturally determined and can't be considered really spooky.

My mother suffers not in a gulag tonigh

Self discipline and being unwavering in your life path. Not bending like a twig.

You should be shot in the face.

MY MOTHER WILL NOT SUFFER IN A GULAG, NOT TODAY NOT TOMORROW NOR NEVER EVER EVER

>I'm a man so masculinity is pure and all about the best of the best of what I think it is to be a man and women are terrible and suck compared to men

Even the good comments (and there are good comments) like can easily be applied to both genders.

This thread is silly. You did this on purpose OP.

How about you actually being able to form a cohesive argument instead of just ad homs?
But douchebaggery does not have to be exclusively male perpetrated but hyper masculinity is however, by men who are assholes, of course; not all men.
And that's the point: "hyper masculinity"(aka toxic [form of] masculinity) is not masculinity. It is a false sense of manhood that is merely used by a group of misogynistic males to hurt and control women and other men usually seen as having less power.
I will admit that the way feminist may write it sounds like they are condemning all masculinity at first and perhaps they need to fix their rhetoric( like many other things they argue). However, they are not wrong to say that hyper masculinity leads to a lot of these problems of rape or violence in society. Yes that is across all races.

You're going to have to explain this better because it makes no sense and I can not agree.
Protecting the people you love is the antithesis of hurting people because you can. You need to reevaluate yourself if you think this makes sense.
One can even argue, that besides the forces of nature, the concept of men having to "protect" women is mostly because of to toxic masculinity. Protect them from whom? Other men who are exhibiting hyper masculinity? We're back to square one.

>One can even argue, that besides the forces of nature, the concept of men having to "protect" women is mostly because of to toxic masculinity. Protect them from whom? Other men who are exhibiting hyper masculinity? We're back to square one.

Okay, so women who kill their children, or rape them, or call in false rape accusations against innocent men, are they exhibiting "Toxic femininity", or are they just extremely shitty people who most likely have some kind of psychopathy?

You are literally calling traits that would be associated with psychopathic people, as somehow a part of a person's gender by definition.

Duh. It's a tumblr meme that some people take too seriously. It can easily be argued against and won't stand up to scrutiny. If you take it seriously as well you're just being taken for a ruse cruise, ya dingus.

First of I told you there are things that women really need to stop doing to each other(and to a lesser extent men because feminists feel women cannot be sexist to men) that even feminists believe is toxic to women's advancement. It is mostly to a lesser extent toxic to society than hypermasculinity though since few is severely injured.

Killing babies and raping (?? ) them is usually due to circumstance brought onto her by society (not enough money / inability to get proper birth control) or is not usual for them to commit, respectively. Not saying most men rape, I just mean of all the few perpurtrators, most of them are men. It is more a male problem because for the longest time it was praised as "manly" or "bad ass." Men having the power to take what the want violently with "might is right" morality.

Only the issue you mentioned of false accusation, can actually be considered toxic. Some could argue it is and I personally won't disagree. It goes back to the idea of women sabotaging others and bringing others down which needs to stop, yes. You can even throw in maternity fraud in there if you want. Also a woman using her looks and sex to get ahead in something that should be merit based. Again it is harmful to women's advancement and psychologically harmful to men women but it is not direct violence to all people like hypermasculinity, so that maybe why it doesn't get as much flack.

few are* severely injured
my bad

Your sex has a lot to do with it. Billions of years of evolution underpin the formation of social dominance hierarchies

>Killing babies and raping (?? ) them is usually due to circumstance brought onto her by society (not enough money / inability to get proper birth control) or is not usual for them to commit, respectively
>It's not heir fault they're psychopaths
Did you really just say this?
>It is more a male problem because
It also a male problem because men make up the most victims in, and have in highest likelihood of being victims of, all violent crime; including sexual crime

>"toxic masculinity" isn't saying that masculinity is inherently toxic and fuck men for existing

except it's always used as a belittling or patronizing term by smug leftards

>we shouldn't encourage men to be stony-faced, impassive walls of repression
>LOL MASCULINITY SO FRAGILE

push

Masculinity is competition. Plain and simple. And from that competition we build codes of honor and so on.

This is why men often lose interest in their work when their workplace competition is women. Competing with women is just weird to alot of men even if they don't verbalize It. It kills the competitive drive. I try to ignore this baser feeling.

But yeah. From competition comes virtues of strength, resilience, stoicism, bravery and so on, and as we became more self-restraining, we introduced honor between others, respect, monogamy and moral standards to live up to. Now competing with morality between each other. Mutually enforced between one another.

Another point to remember is why girly men are ridiculed. Because originally they would have no value to a society that needs strength and resilient men. And being a feminine man meant you provided nothing and thus were deserving of the trash heap.

Just because competition is an aspect of male sexual strategy doesn't mean it's the entirety of masculinity.
It's obviously much more pronounced in males because females are the limiting factor in the species but that doesn't mean both sexes don't experience intrasexual competition. Because of the sorts of traits males select for female sexual competition is not materially productive like it is with males, and is pretty much overlooked.

>it's society's fault they are psychopaths
Nice job putting words ans my mouth and ignoring context. In terms of things like drowning or killing their babies, yes because those dire situations mostly happen still in society because of circumstances like poverty or lack of birth control access.
As for rape, obviously it's there fault then but I'm saying the fact that the criminals who do thesw are still overwhelming men and generally rarely women says alot.They were also never socially rewarded for such behavior (I mean,that in the most figurative way possible btw). Plus, in terms of rape regardless of age and gender, I brought up the point that it was excused in men as "manly" for the longest time because of might is right type of morality. You, of course, chose to ignore that. I mentioned that while many feminists would not consider those toxic behaviors I mention by females as harmful to both women and men and thus society at large, I would personally consider them a toxic feminunity if you want to make the case for it. The only thing is you don't have murder and other violence happening in higher frequency due to such behavior. Perhaps suicides?
>It also a male problem because men make up the most victims in, and have in highest likelihood of being victims of, all violent crime; including sexual crime.
Well...yes.I said that. Wait, are you agreeing with me or are you really this dumb?
I never said the negative effects of hypermasculinity (toxic) were not experienced by other men. I'm sure I made that quite clear. All that further affirms my point about how toxic masculinity has such a negative impact on society. And yes .

I think it may be a different kind of competition. The reasons for competing are different. Men compete to prove worth. Women compete over the worthy.

Women don't have the raw strength men have, and thus compete with something more covert (catty behavior, cliques, sex, beauty). This isn't wrong or anything. It'd just the best option to compete for each sex, generally. People forget we're still biological creatures. Sure we have free will but it's not easy to undo millenia of evolution. I hate to sound preachy but if you ever wonder why a certain sex has a certain trait or kind of behavior, trace it back to a time without a civilization. And just evolve it up to now.

I may have missed your point, I'm sleepy so I apologize

Women select for men that are resourceful and socially dominant, it's just so happens that attaining the former usually results in productive behavior for the entire community (the latter only sometimes does).
Men select for what, pretty face and nice asses? Girls competing for males is literally just making themselves look physically attractive since that is by far the most important selection criteria. The behavior you're describing (denigration, ostracization, etc) are only possible because some girls are much more attractive and therefore valuable and socially powerful.

> trace it back to a time without a civilization. And just evolve it up to now.

I don't disagree at all with this, I'm mainly an eliminative materialist so I accept all the evolutionary psych stuff. I just think that saying masculinity = competition is really oversimplifying and ignoring the fact that females do it to, for the reasons I described above

Egoism is meme idealogy, it is literally just '' do what you want as long as it benefits you lol i'm so smart for coming up with this :)))))''

Masculinity is the reason that men die earlier than women.