[Victoribus Spolia]

How did this thread become a discussion on interracial relationships?

Weird.

[One Degree]

How did this thread become a discussion on interracial relationships?

Weird.

Libertarian posted a picture of a Black man and white blond woman for no apparent reason. It had nothing to do with anything.
I made the mistake of saying Black women use to be highly offended by such pictures and wondered if they still are. Apparently speaking up for Black women somehow makes me a racist. I am still trying to figure how that works.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Libertarian posted a picture of a Black man and white blond woman for no apparent reason. It had nothing to do with anything.

@Libertarian353 posted that? NO!! I can't believe it.

Imagine my shock.

I made the mistake of saying Black women use to be highly offended by such pictures and wondered if they still are. Apparently speaking up for Black women somehow makes me a racist. I am still trying to figure how that works.

[Rancid]

Being a man should be illegal.

[Godstud]

@Rancid The Gillette commercial isn't a big deal, but I see a lot of men yacking about "toxic masculinity"... . If you have a problem with it, then you probably should be paying attention to what it says.

It's just a commercial, just like the Nike on. People are paying attention to companies that encourage change, or support issues. It's a great ad when consider all the media attention it's been getting.

[Rancid]

If you have a problem with it, then you probably should be paying attention to what it says.

I disagree with this statement. Questioning it and analyzing it a bit doesn't by default mean I disagree with the overall point it was trying to make. I think when people take this stand to try and shut people up, it tells me they aren't being very thoughtful or don't care to hear a perspective that doesn't resonance with them (i.e. they want ot live in an echo chamber).

Moreover, do you think some asshole douche bag that hates women or whatever is actually going to say to themselves "Oh my god! I have to change my ways!" after watching that?

For me personally, I'm not offended by it, but I didn't really understand what it was trying to tell me. Yes, obviously the over arching message made sense, "don't be an asshole". I got it, based on the imagery, it seemed to try and same more than just that. Am I supposed to feel guilty about the things that the previous generation of men have done? Am I supposed to always defend a woman that is being harassed no matter the cost? Am I supposed to stopped grilling (ok ok ok, i know i know lol)? Given that most guys are not assholes, what is this trying to say to them?

It wasn't clear, and yes, it needs to be clear. Or rather, shouldn't this whole discussion be a bit more nuanced?

I don't know, i kind of stopped caring to talk about this at all now...

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Moreover, do you think some asshole douche bag that hates women or whatever is actually going to say to themselves "Oh my god! I have to change my ways!" after watching that?

Its message is "stop your mates from being assholes, or your kids from bullying". The point being that people have turned a blind eye too much. That's why it talks about "boys will be boys" - it's a stock phrase people say to ignore whatever the boys are doing.

[One Degree]

I am curious how transgenders, for example, are just expressing their ‘inner being’ , but men are just assholes who need to change who they are? Who makes these decisions about who we are suppose to be and who gets to choose who they are and who doesn’t? Who decides what actions are correct and which aren’t? Where is this all knowing authority?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@One Degree , the point is about men being assholes to other people. The ideas of ethics and morals have been based for millennia on how we treat others; this is not a new concept. If you want the name of the all-knowing authority, it's "humanity".

[Sivad]

I am curious how transgenders, for example, are just expressing their ‘inner being’ , but men are just assholes who need to change who they are? Who makes these decisions about who we are suppose to be and who gets to choose who they are and who doesn’t? Who decides what actions are correct and which aren’t? Where is this all knowing authority?

There is no ultimate authority. It is kind of funny though that all these different identitarian groups can recognize toxic traits in outgroups but not their own groups. The reality is there's toxicity all along the spectrum. There's toxic masculinity, there's toxic femininity, there's toxic butchness in women, and there's toxic effeminacy in men. And there's toxic identity fetishism everywhere you look. There is no sane rational side in the culture war, it's just crazy idiocy coming from every direction, left, right, and center.

[One Degree]

@One Degree , the point is about men being assholes to other people. The ideas of ethics and morals have been based for millennia on how we treat others; this is not a new concept. If you want the name of the all-knowing authority, it's "humanity".

It is definitely a new concept when you single out men and tell them that is not who they are suppose to be while saying everyone else gets to choose who they are. Men get to choose who they are only as long as they don’t choose traditional masculinity. History clearly shows we are aggressive. We do have masculine traits. We are not females who have decided to be aggressive males.
I don’t agree with bullying, but ‘real men’ are not bullies. This ‘toxic masculinity’ crap has it all wrong. It is the men who don’t measure up as ‘real men’ that create these offenses. Real men don’t do this stuff. You are discriminating against the wrong thing.

[Sivad]

This ‘toxic masculinity’ crap has it all wrong.

It's not all wrong, it might go way too far, but there's a fair element of truth in it. I grew up in a tough guy culture that was completely toxic. It's pretty silly to deny there's such a thing as toxic masculinity or that it's a big problem in some cultures.

[One Degree]

It's not all wrong, it might go way too far, but there's a fair element of truth in it. I grew up in a tough guy culture that was completely toxic. It's pretty silly to deny there's such a thing as toxic masculinity or that it's a big problem in some cultures.

I don’t deny the problems. I deny that our ‘masculine nature’ is the cause of it. This same ‘masculine nature’ has been the basis for defending the defenseless and protecting our own. Those abusing it does not make being masculine wrong. These are societal problems, not problems that can be corrected by telling men not to be men. We actually need to encourage men to be men to stop the assholes who aren’t going to listen to the philosophical reasons they shouldn’t be assholes. The only men this changes are the ones we should not want changed.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you have a problem with it, then you probably should be paying attention to what it says.

It did show a dad stopping horse-play, I doubt you thought that part was great as you are more old school in your parenting as far as POFO standards are concerned.

In any event, Dollar Shave Club membership has soared in the aftermath, which is hilarious.

To be honest, I think the biggest miscalculation made on the part of Gillette was that soyboy cucks don't shave because they can't grow facial hair.

[Drlee]

OD said: I don’t deny the problems. I deny that our ‘masculine nature’ is the cause of it. This same ‘masculine nature’ has been the basis for defending the defenseless and protecting our own. Those abusing it does not make being masculine wrong. These are societal problems, not problems that can be corrected by telling men not to be men. We actually need to encourage men to be men to stop the assholes who aren’t going to listen to the philosophical reasons they shouldn’t be assholes. The only men this changes are the ones we should not want changed

I do't disagree in general. The issue is not suppressing masculine traits but rather establish limits on acceptable behavior. There is a danger in demonizing masculinity. Big danger.

Throughout history is has always been "time" to teach young boys the limits of acting out their masculinity. We rarely talk about it but testosterone hits boys very hard and virtually never stops hitting them. Controlling their insecurities which can cause rage is important.

My father taught me it was never good to hit someone. He taught me not to get into fights. He taught me not to bully someone else. He taught me that real men never ever hit women. Despite what some would describe as his anti-masculine tone, I wound up a combat arms soldier and studied unarmed martial arts as well. His message was completely consistent with the message that was reinforced in my army training. It is not about banning the use of anger and force but rather controlling it so that it can be justifiable and even useful. Some have seen a video game character in berserk mode; you ought to see a company of infantry in berserk mode. It is terrifying to see. But under control it is an awesome display of masculine power and rage used correctly.

Regarding your comments about transgender people. That is irrelevant. Appropriate behavior is universal. It is not about how groups behave it is about how individuals behave; only sometimes in groups.

The #metoo movement is not at its core about overt sexual violence. I believe there is almost universal condemnation of men who force women. Seeking sex by physical force or intimidation, is now and has always been wrong. Even the ancient Egyptians had laws about it.

The answer is to teach men how to recognize their biological tendencies to dominate and to violence and then moderate them in a way that leaves others unharmed by them. The biggest part of this message is to teach men to respect women as equals and partners and not as targets. It is a lesson that is hard learned for some if not all men.

If Gillette wants to posit a healthy message for boys and men that is fine with me. Is it wise marketing? Who knows? We are talking about it.

[Rancid]

Its message is "stop your mates from being assholes, or your kids from bullying". The point being that people have turned a blind eye too much. That's why it talks about "boys will be boys" - it's a stock phrase people say to ignore whatever the boys are doing.

I agree with stopping your mates from being assholes. What about strangers? Did it make commentary on that?

It did show a dad stopping horse-play, I doubt you thought that part was great as you are more old school in your parenting as far as POFO standards are concerned.

I think it was suggesting that it was bullying and not horse-play. However, I would agree that it really wasn't clear.

When my wife saw that dad breaking up the two boys. My wife was like "what? Let them duke it out!" In the playground, she not as quick to break up struggles between the kids as most of the other parents are. The benefit I see is that my daughter doesn't take shit from anyone, no matter how big the kids are. They also don't come crying to us for issues that they can clearly handle themselves.

Anyway, I think there's value to allowing kids to experience conflict. That's not to say we don't protect kids from bullying. We just have to keep in mind, that not all struggle/confliuct between kids is bullying.

That said, rough-play is actually good for children and should not be broken up so long as no one is getting hurt. It helps kids understand boundaries, gives them a sense for what their bodies are capable of doing. It also teaches that the concept of "there's a time and place for play, and a time and place to handle responsibilities"

[Rancid]

@Victoribus Spolia,

My wife will often mention how wimpy some of the kids at my son's school are (in the sense that they cry over everything and can't seem to cope with simple resolvable conflicts). I wonder if it's because of this hyper protective parenting that happens. Anecdotally, it feels like older parents and parents of a single child engage in this more.

Anyway, no matter the reason I reminder her "Well, it just means that when they are all adults our kids will be the alphas that are tough and know how to get shit done."

Anyway, there is certainly a push back on the over protective parenting these days. I read in some random psychology website that people are expecting Gen Z to be a little more mentally strong than millennial. Mainly because we're taking a more relaxed (less protective) approach to raising kids.

It looks like the MeToo stuff might conflict with this relaxed style of parenting?

[Victoribus Spolia]

I think it was suggesting that it was bullying and not horse-play. However, I would agree that it really wasn't clear. When my wife saw that dad breaking up the two boys. My wife was like "what? Let them duke it out!" In the playground, she not as quick to break up struggles between the kids as most of the other parents are. The benefit I see is that my daughter doesn't take shit from anyone, no matter how big the kids are. They also don't come crying to us for issues that they can clearly handle themselves.Anyway, I think there's value to allowing kids to experience conflict. That's not to say we don't protect kids from bullying. We just have to keep in mind, that not all struggle/confliuct between kids is bullying.That said, rough-play is actually good for children and should not be broken up so long as no one is getting hurt. It helps kids understand boundaries, gives them a sense for what their bodies are capable of doing. It also teaches that the concept of "there's a time and place for play, and a time and place to handle responsibilities"

I agree with all of this; I guess bullying isn't a big issue among homeschooled kids; but I am very old school as a parent; I expect impeccable public behavior, but generally let the kids run and rough each other up as much as possible when at home; they are very free at home to play, fight, etc so long as they obey instructions without hesitation, don't mouth-back, don't break the ten commandments, all of which could get them a good spanking.

Thus, my kids are pretty free-roaming and i am generally pretty laid back; i have found the consequence is that my kids are strangley tough and rough with other kids. two of my nephews are the same age as my oldest son, but they are either only-children or only 1 of 2 with big gaps and both of these nephews of mine attend public school.

They are super soft, my nephew cried because he got shot in the forehead with a nerf dart and my daugher called him a poop eater. What a little pussy.

My kids literally had no idea how to handle someone crying over that as they are in an environment where there are five kids total in a confined space beating the tar out of each other on a regular basis.

I'm so proud.

However, I am a bit concerned about these public school kids, I know the school I went to growing up you had to learn how to defend yourself quick on the playground and I learned all the sex positions and every cuss word by age 9 on this same playground...

Something has definitely changed. I think i'm gonna put my kids in martial arts, they'll probably clean house cause I know they are already experts at taking hits and they are great at getting in peoples heads.

[Victoribus Spolia]

My wife will often mention how wimpy some of the kids at my son's school are (in the sense that they cry over everything and can't seem to cope with simple resolvable conflicts). I wonder if it's because of this hyper protective parenting that happens. Anecdotally, it feels like older parents and parents of a single child engage in this more.Anyway, no matter the reason I reminder her "Well, it just means that when they are all adults our kids will be the alphas that are tough and know how to get shit done."Anyway, there is certainly a push back on the over protective parenting these days. I read in some random psychology website that people are expecting Gen Z to be a little more mentally strong than millennial. Mainly because we're taking a more relaxed (less protective) approach to raising kids.

I just saw this. I agree completely.

More kids means more conflicts, its human nature. We don't learn about human conflict resolution apart from engaging in conflicts; thus it would follow that kids from smaller families are less prepared to deal with conflicts, including violence.

Likewise, people develop a great tolerance to pain and insults by getting hurt and being insulted. IF you never got kicked in the shins or called a poopy-head in your entire life, the first time of getting that exposure would be pretty traumatic.

This is kinda common sense if you think about it.

[Rancid]

They are super soft, my nephew cried because he got shot in the forehead with a nerf dart and my daugher called him a poop eater. What a little pussy.

However, I am a bit concerned about these public school schools, I know the school I went to growing up you had to learn how to defend yourself quick on the playground and I learned all the sex positions and every cuss word by age 9 on this same playground...

Well, I'm not so sure I want my son to lean about sex position just yet, thogh he does know that you have to inject sperm into a woman to get a baby. None of that stupid storke delivering babies shit.

Anyway, as for defending yourself in school. Yea, it's sad, they tell the kids to basically be pussies and not defend themselves. I had to have a long talk with my son on how I expect him to defend himself, and even if he gets in trouble with the school, that I will not be angry at him. I told him, fuck what they told you in school, if you need to defend yourself, you do it. I'll eventually have the same talk with my daughter.

I mentioned that I had the above talk with my son to a coworker in his early 20s. He was surprised that i told my son that. He was like "wouldn't he get in trouble?" I was shocked, I was just shocked to hear this. I responded "who gives a shit, the schools care more about their own liability and not the children".