Maybe it's time for some positive representation of masculinity in our culture? Something that celebrates men (and not for being feminine) and maleness? Of course many men don't have any goals or ambition when mainstream culture will do nothing but shit on them even if they achieve something.

The problem is that so much of maleness is stuff like the male libido, which is a bad, no good, horrible, terrible thing which one must be ashamed of and stigmatized for having. They call it “the male gaze” and try to root it out of the media.

Masculinity is porn, soldiers, guns, cars, savior fantasies, and suffering.

We will get a positive representation and celebration of masculinity at around the same time when a term like “toxic femininity” gets used as much as toxic masculinity does today.

you're just repeating alt right talking points. women aren't personally offended that men get boners, if you think they are then the problem is you and not women

in the real world it's the opposite, they get offended if you don't get them

> in the real world it's the opposite, they get offended if you don't get them

That is just as sexist of them, they don't own male sexuality if he doesn't get it up for you then you should do better. That is what women say to men at least, do better don't blame the other sex.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Male sexuality is indeed surprised even moreso than female sexuality. There are opportunities to flaunt the latter, but the "ideal male body" is exactly part of how people get into the alt right pipeline.

It starts with objectively good advice like "work out and go to the gym to get a good body". Which is surprisingly on the downside in K-12 education. Then it drips in the narrative: "revenge training" to get fit not for your self-esteem but to make a bad breakup regret it, then into the "sigma male grindset", then if you do all this and you still aren't appealing it must be because of women. You worked hard, they don't get it or are too picky, or are looking for some famed gigachad with 8 packs and making 200k a year.

It's a slow drip into the pipeline.

----

tangent: but in media male sexuality is much more suppressed too. You can show quite a bit of nudity in R rated films, but absolutely not a boner in any way 99% of the time. I don't think that changes much in society, food for thought.

If you're doing the "sigma male grindset", wouldn't YOU be the one with an 8-pack and 200k a year? Both are absolutely attainable by a motivated male with average intelligence. Not trying to defend any right/left partisan nonsense here.

Both are theoretically attainable but far from practical. And that "possible but really hard" aspect is by design.

That sheer gap may make some work harder. It will likely discourage many who will then look for quick solutions, and that's where the next steps set in. Where they either sell you their fitness products or their pyramid scheme.

If that was true, then the average male salary would be higher

> It starts with objectively good advice like "work out and go to the gym to get a good body"

This advice is given almost exclusively by men to other men. Similar to how women enforce toxic beauty standards on other women

And I mean, just because you don't see boners in films doesn't mean that society thinks that boners are bad. That's like saying that not seeing vaginas in films means society thinks vaginas are bad

Well, it's indirectly given by women. You don't hurt get "the body" with purely diet. Gyms I've been to are closer in gender ratio than you'd expect for such societal expectations. Even if women tend to focus more on cardio than men and men focus more on resistance/strength training.

And yeah, it's given because it appeals to men. A chance to move about, physically push themselves, perform specific tasks for a specific amount of time, etc. Men and women are drawn to different things (for a variety of reasons), so men just resonate more with that than women.

>just because you don't see boners in films doesn't mean that society thinks that boners are bad. That's like saying that not seeing vaginas in films means society thinks vaginas are bad

In a vacuum yes. In the history of the MPAA, the reasons and reactions make you wonder...

But it's ultimately a non-sequitir. Its just some tangential food for thought.

I think they're the opposite of ignorant. They know boys are angry and purposefully taking advantadge of their need for acceptance to further their own goals, be it money, power, or clout.

We have a name for groups who target and isolate vulnerable individuals for personal gain...

I wasn't just talking about the GOP. Some of these people actually are ignorant, feel bad about it, and try to keep everyone else ignorant so that they feel less bad about themselves

Asimov said something about this:

> There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.

It's a global tendency, even if the effects are slightly different.

Some, perhaps. There's plenty of splinters who got their advice up the chain.

But I don't think the root causes that started as millionaires already and only get richer are ignorant per se. You need a certain discipline, narrative, and overall feel on the mood to properly become that successful on a grift. I doubt many of them went from rags to riches on this.

Why can't the boys have female role models?

I don't know. Why are we told that representation is important and we must have diversity along every axis throughout media?

Well, if you think about it for five seconds, it's because people in general (but especially children) identify with and look up to people who look like them and share their culture. That's just human nature.

Then I guess it's a good thing men are still well (overly?) represented among world leaders, CEOs, etc. -- I'm not sure how anyone can claim there are no male role models in a world with 100% male US presidents (for instance).

"good" male role models. I wouldn't call elon musk, donald trump, nor Andrew tates good examples to follow.

Not just "look like them" and "share their culture". They have deep biological similarities, not some superficial traits.

It's not impossible, but boys with only female role models do not develop their masculinity, which is important for self-control considering males can be physically dangerous. I believe there is a link between criminal behavior (which is mostly men) and single mothers. It's really more than a correlation, and perhaps one of the leading causes of criminality.

you think malcomx had a male role model around to provide masculinity? or about 765,432 other examples I can provide.

on one hand you are saying boys with female role models do not develop their masculinity and on the other you are saying there is a link between criminal behaviour and single mothers? this criminal behaviour is coming from their feminine side?

No, it's not a contradiction. The criminal behavior arises from males not being able to control themselves and using force to get what they want. Fathers put boys in their place and they learn to respect authority. Mothers are there to cuddle and pamper their children and this is horrible for boys and their development as dangerous grown males.

what makes you think that women don't know how to put men in their place?

Poor results, I just wouldn't phrase it like who you responded to or as "putting men in their place", especially given the context was about boys and not men. Putting "men" in their place as an adult woman can sometimes be physically dangerous. And it's not clear to me how effective it would be at that point of their (the mans) development.

It's also not clear to me at all that the person you are responding to is correct about mothering being about pampering or whatever. You could easily ascribe a tendency like that to the higher likelihood for single mothers to also be more stressed or less well off and with less time to invest in doing much more than trying to placate the child in the quickest way possible. Plenty of mothers that don't pamper and fathers that do, so that claim needs a citation I would think.

> It's also not clear to me at all that the person you are responding to is correct about mothering being about pampering or whatever.

The word they were looking for is "coddle".

They don't understand what it means to be physically dangerous.

Preferring a bear over a man?

This reads like a parody of 1950s child rearing.

amazing, right??!

Look up the stats on criminals and single mothers.

Why a father can't cuddle and pumper their boys?

Single parent households are more likely to be poor, and are likely to have less time available to care for children. Those are both things strongly associated with higher chances of the children becoming criminal. Why do you think that is not sufficient to explain things?

Good question... I did. But maybe I'm just lucky

Who was your female role model? can you expand?

You can, but ultimately there are male issues that are much easier to confide with males on. Especially about women. It's no different from why women need some female role models.

A lot of these women will be creating PowerPoint slides and holding meetings for things that don't need a meeting to pay down a 6 figure debt incurred to obtain a worthless degree. Blind ambition to meet an arbitrary metric is stupid.

Exactly, this is one of the actual problems.

I really don't think this is unique in terms of gender or generation. But it is a persistent narrative that leads a lot of wayward young men to idolize false "role model" e celebs.