Hyper-masculinity in the third world - do Western conservatives really want to live like them?

I never said that we aren't "real men". The challenges that the modern man faces are more psychological than physical. Willpower is more important than physical durability, these days. Strength has become less important compared to intelligence.

It is no shame to admit that we are probably less physical, overall, than the generations of the past. That's obvious enough looking at the statistics. That doesn't necessarily mean that we are less capable, though. We should strive to be more intelligent and knowledgeable.

Looking at some of the recent progress, I'm not sure if we can exactly claim that, though. A lot of people seem to be getting even dumber.

In any case, I try not to compare myself to a mythical past that I was never involved with. People have all of these preconceived ideas on what it was like to "be a man", but in reality they don't know shit about it.

As for that whole thing, I'll just let H.P. Lovecraft sum up my thoughts towards it:

"As for your artificial conception of "splendid & traditional ways of life"—I feel quite confident that you are very largely constructing a mythological idealisation of something which never truly existed; a conventional picture based on the perusal of books which followed certain hackneyed lines in the matter of incidents, sentiments, & situations, & which never had a close relationship to the actual societies they professed to depict . . .

In some ways the life of certain earlier periods had marked advantages over life today, but there were compensating disadvantages which would make many hesitate about a choice. Some of the most literarily attractive ages had a coarseness, stridency, & squalor which we would find insupportable . . . Modern neurotics, lolling in stuffed easy chairs, merely make a myth of these old periods & use them as the nuclei of escapist daydreams whose substance resembles but little the stern actualities of yesterday. That is undoubtedly the case with me—only I'm fully aware of it. Except in certain selected circles, I would undoubtedly find my own 18th century insufferably coarse, orthodox, arrogant, narrow, & artificial. What I look back upon nostalgically is a dream-world which I invented at the age of four from picture books & the Georgian hill streets of Old Providence. . . . There is something artificial & hollow & unconvincing about self-conscious intellectual traditionalism—this being, of course, the only valid objection against it. The best sort of traditionalism is that easy-going eclectic sort which indulges in no frenzied pulmotor stunts, but courses naturally down from generation to generation; bequeathing such elements as really are sound, losing such as have lost value, & adding any which new conditions may make necessary. . . .

In short, young man, I have no quarrel with the principle of traditionalism as such, but I have a decided quarrel with everything that is insincere, inappropriate, & disproportionate; for these qualities mean ugliness & weakness in the most offensive degree. I object to the feigning of artificial moods on the part of literary moderns who cannot even begin to enter into the life & feelings of the past which they claim to represent . . . If there were any reality or depth of feeling involved, the case would be different; but almost invariably the neotraditionalists are sequestered persons remote from any real contacts or experience with life . . . For any person today to fancy he can truly enter into the life & feeling of another period is really nothing but a confession of ignorance of the depth & nature of life in its full sense. This is the case with myself. I feel I am living in the 18th century, though my objective judgment knows better, & realises the vast difference from the real thing. The one redeeming thing about my ignorance of life & remoteness from reality is that I am fully conscious of it, hence (in the last few years) make allowances for it, & do not pretend to an impossible ability to enter into the actual feelings of this or any other age. The emotions of the past were derived from experiences, beliefs, customs, living conditions, historic backgrounds, horizons, &c. &c. so different from our own, that it is simply silly to fancy we can duplicate them, or enter warmly & subjectively into all phases of their aesthetic expression."

Some of us still work physical jobs, and have way better health, compared to the "good old days". You could definitely say some of us may even be > than many of the men before us. So I pretty much agree with you.
 
Then they are fools for the reasons that you clearly did not read in the OP.

Conservatives have railed against what they now call "Western values" for all of history - but now they're using it as a subterfuge for validating their reasoning for being constantly trembling in fear of brown people and passing it off as manliness.

Yearning for the sociological makeup of third world countries does nothing to "defend the western world when the 3rd world men decide to bring the fight here." I think military strength and world economic prosperity are more meaningful considerations towards that end.




Well, this certainly attracted quality, thoughtful responses.

At what point is it just useless to even try to discuss substantive topics with conservatives? Even further, why are you guys here on a politics forum? You could be watching SpikeTV and getting your narrowly-focused political fear-sweating fix from StormFront.
Western men are stronger than any other man on Planet Earth. You know why? Because we are smarter.

Deal with it and us Western men will revel in your hatred of us.
 
SMH at going against nature. If social engineers stopped pushing gynocentrism on our young boys, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Biology will always win. Healthy masculinity doesn't need to be primitive or regressive at all. Repression very often leads to unhealthy, antisocial means of release, i.e, the overcompensating tough guy always out to prove he's not a bitch, or the relentless pussy hound.
Neither are true traits of masculinity.
The left offers the antithesis of what is natural, healthy and good.

I like how TS accuses us of "fetishizing" authoritarian figures like Stalin. Pretty funny.
Also, why does the left fetishize the ugly, the sick, the bizarre and the morbidly unhealthy?
Rhetorical question, BTW.
 
Some of us still work physical jobs, and have way better health, compared to the "good old days". You could definitely say some of us may even be > than many of the men before us. So I pretty much agree with you.

Well, I live in a country where the previous generations were extremely fit and have had extremely long life spans (almost 90 years). Alcoholics, many of them, but it seemingly did not take much away from their fitness and average age of living.

I can only imagine if we could combine their physical activity, with our current increased knowledge on things such as smoking, eating properly and avoiding alcohol, to create a generation of super-men, almost. But it appears that as people get more physically lax, they start picking up diseases like diabetes and such which will nullify any of the improvements made, in regards to avoiding alcohol, tobacco and such stuff.

Sometimes it is good to look to the past, only with the idea in mind that not everything was perfect. In fact, more things were probably screwed-up than they are today. But there are also aspects of the past that we may use as inspiration in our modern lives. Sometimes we lose virtues that would've been better off preserved, rather than forsaken.

A lot of what was lost, was probably lost for a reason.
 
I've mulled over this topic several times. But the recent testimonials of NBA players about depression and how growing up, particularly in low-income inner city areas, they were not able to discuss mental health for fear of seeming weak - it reminded me of the disparate existence of hyper-masculinity across ethnic and economic lines. Even within the society of the wealthiest country in the world (the United States), traditional concepts of masculinity persist much more strongly in poorer urban communities.

For instance African Americans, despite having disproportionately high incidence of mental illness, are far less likely to seek mental health treatment; African Americans and Hispanic Americans are more likely to be averse to homosexuality; African Americans and Hispanic Americans are more likely to be religious and intolerant of religious liberalism


But in poor communities and in underdeveloped countries from the Middle East, to Africa, to Latin America, traditional (to citizens of countries like the US, perhaps outdated) concepts of masculinity still persist to a much greater degree than even in poor US populations, concepts such as:
  • inability to discuss personal problems and demonization of emotion
  • small-mindedness, unwillingness to consider others' perspectives, or worldviews outside one's own
  • pathological need to protect one's own image of "manliness" through irrational display/use of force
  • hostility towards gender equality/women's rights and intolerance of sexual minorities (homophobia)

Meanwhile, ignorant nostalgia for the loss of traditional masculine concepts is really only present in Western societies whose standards of living and overall happiness are some of the highest in the world - and really only at the top of those societies at that.


So, social conservatives, do you see any problems here?

Yeah, if you actually read those NBA-interviews they talk a lot about broken families, how none of the players or their friends had a father around. How the constant threat of crime creates unbearable stress and how people in inner city neighbourhoods constantly eyeball each other, looking for fights and probing for weakness.

I'm not a conservative, but that is the very opposite of the kind of society traditional conservatives wish for: a society focused on family, good manners and civility and the harsh punishment of crime.
 
Western men are stronger than any other man on Planet Earth. You know why? Because we are smarter.

Deal with it and us Western men will revel in your hatred of us.
At the top of the food chain for a reason. Some possess brains. Some possess brawn. Western Man has more than sufficient amounts of both.
It's time The West shakes off the spell that has been cast upon too many of us and start re-realizing this.
 
Yeah, if you actually read those NBA-interviews they talk a lot about broken families, how none of the players or their friends had a father around. How the constant threat of crime creates unbearable stress and how people in inner city neighbourhoods constantly eyeball each other, looking for fights and probing for weakness.

I'm not a conservative, but that is the very opposite of the kind of society traditional conservatives wish for: a society focused on family, good manners and civility and the harsh punishment of crime.

But those are the exact types of societies that are created by conservative economics, arbitrary focus of policy onto fleeting moral platitudes, and the very "harsh punishment of crime" that you mention.

You can harp all that you want about good manners and civility, but you can't proselytize a nation with a permanent and increasingly impoverished underclass. Preaching just isn't effective policy: you need to properly allocate opportunity and resources.
 
Well, I live in a country where the previous generations were extremely fit and have had extremely long life spans (almost 90 years). Alcoholics, many of them, but it seemingly did not take much away from their fitness and average age of living.

I can only imagine if we could combine their physical activity, with our current increased knowledge on things such as smoking, eating properly and avoiding alcohol, to create a generation of super-men, almost. But it appears that as people get more physically lax, they start picking up diseases like diabetes and such which will nullify any of the improvements made, in regards to avoiding alcohol, tobacco and such stuff.

Sometimes it is good to look to the past, only with the idea in mind that not everything was perfect. In fact, more things were probably screwed-up than they are today. But there are also aspects of the past that we may use as inspiration in our modern lives. Sometimes we lose virtues that would've been better off preserved, rather than forsaken.

A lot of what was lost, was probably lost for a reason.

It's like most issues, the physical health of humans is a lot more complexed than one thing. I know and work with a few alcoholics that are quite fit. Human life expectancy since the 1950s has skyrocketed, so I would so most humans are doing better than ever before.
 
Leftists constantly preach about how conservatives are evil, racist, bigots, homophobes and xenophobes with toxic masculinity,patriotism etc . Yet they want to import people from the 3rd world who are hyper conservative, hyper patriotic and in some cases hyper masculine. Go figure.

The guy who made this thread posted recently that he hopes AI or robots take over the world and make humans extinct. He has a nihilistic view of the world and should be taken with a grain of salt for anything he says. At best, he is depressed, and worst he actually is a loser who wants it all to crumble. A lot of his supporters on this sub forum are in the same boat as him. He also wont reply to people who point this out.
 
It's like most issues, the physical health of humans is a lot more complexed than one thing. I know and work with a few alcoholics that are quite fit. Human life expectancy since the 1950s has skyrocketed, so I would so most humans are doing better than ever before.

But you should also remember that it's the people born in the 1950's and around that time who are responsible for the life expectancy sky-rocketing.

From what I've been hearing, life expectancy is stagnating, and possibly going to start decreasing, here in the West, once "our generations" come up.
 
But you should also remember that it's the people born in the 1950's and around that time who are responsible for the life expectancy sky-rocketing.

From what I've been hearing, life expectancy is stagnating, and possibly going to start decreasing, here in the West, once "our generations" come up.


The maximum shelf life for a human has been 122 so far. So we may just be at the maximum average life span already, so seeing a slight dip shouldnt be to alarming. If we start see more than a few year drop off without it going back up then humanity should worry. Getting back to eating a clean diet would definitely help.
 
The maximum shelf life for a human has been 122 so far. So we may just be at the maximum average life span already, so seeing a slight dip shouldnt be to alarming. If we start see more than a few year drop off without it going back up then humanity should worry. Getting back to eating a clean diet would definitely help.

Oh look we have a diet Nazi here.
 
it's especially alarming how right wingers fetishize the "manliness" of authoritarians like Stalin

i agree, anyone who would venerate a bolshevik has serious deep-seated issues
 
Lay off Trotsky, every single one of us has had those periods where we see nothing but darkness in humanities future.
 
The guy who made this thread posted recently that he hopes AI or robots take over the world and make humans extinct. He has a nihilistic view of the world and should be taken with a grain of salt for anything he says. At best, he is depressed, and worst he actually is a loser who wants it all to crumble. A lot of his supporters on this sub forum are in the same boat as him. He also wont reply to people who point this out.
I find it very difficult to take the least bit seriously any political commentary regarding the US and it's governance from a guy calling himself Trotsky.
Mumbly Marxist bullshit will get nothing but scorn and ridicule from me.
If you're a communist, what are you even doing here? There is no place for such a forced at gunpoint, corrupt, anti- human spirit, failure of an ideology here. I say: take it, shove it and hit the bricks for hungrier pastures.
We used to have a saying: better dead than Red.
 
Men and women are different and that's the way it is.

However there is a point between men clubbing women on the head and dragging them to a cave and being a "soy boy".

Being a man has nothing to do with abusing and everything to do with respect and honor.

The ideal to be taught to boys about how to be a man is not teaching them to be abusive to anyone.

Sadly this is not something that is being passed down and in fact boys are being drugged for just being boys in many cases.

This why a good father figure is so important in a boys life as he should teach him how a man should act. Also why it is important in a girls life as it should teach her how she is expected to be treated.

This was the ideal and was reflected in society and even in our entertainment for a long time. Society did not live up to it in many things and plenty of men failed to even come close to doing what was right but that didn't make it wrong to try.

So things are going to change for the better and plenty for the worse but basics stay the same.

So men can and should change with the times but keep their natural traits and learn to channel, control and use them to the betterment of all.
 
Last edited:
i agree, anyone who would venerate a bolshevik has serious deep-seated issues

1453.gif
 
I've mulled over this topic several times. But the recent testimonials of NBA players about depression and how growing up, particularly in low-income inner city areas, they were not able to discuss mental health for fear of seeming weak - it reminded me of the disparate existence of hyper-masculinity across ethnic and economic lines. Even within the society of the wealthiest country in the world (the United States), traditional concepts of masculinity persist much more strongly in poorer urban communities.

For instance African Americans, despite having disproportionately high incidence of mental illness
what? Like this character
radioraheem-thumb-600x397-46630.jpg

Meanwhile, ignorant nostalgia for the loss of traditional masculine concepts is really only present in Western societies whose standards of living and overall happiness are some of the highest in the world - and really only at the top of those societies at that.

So, social conservatives, do you see any problems here?[/QUOTE]
Dunno...several underdevelopment countries , like Brazil and Thailand, have a very sizeable minority of transexual that are integral part of those societies.
 
what? Like this character
radioraheem-thumb-600x397-46630.jpg



So, social conservatives, do you see any problems here?
Dunno...several underdevelopment countries , like Brazil and Thailand, have a very sizeable minority of transexual that are integral part of those societies.[/QUOTE]

Of course there are caveats, such as in countries like Iran where transgendered persons have fairly robust and longstanding rights, to the observation. I actually wasn't aware of any such population in Brazil and had to google it.
 
Back
Top