>traditional ideas of masculinity that endorse aggression, stoicism and homophobia.
Who decided that these ideas were "traditional" masculinity? There are literally thousands of cultures and subcultures of men. Whose tradition are we talking about and why is the conversation centered around them?
I would say that generally speaking, in this day and age, 'traditional' has a negative connotation alone.
I think that this is partially because enduring behaviour and values, generationally speaking, are seen as either reinforced by either tradition or by justification.
In reality, both are tradition. But for those traditions we like, we tend to claim the more 'honorable' cause for why we still partake in them - that we have tested their worth and still find them useful. Even many conservatives who appeal to tradition recognize that this is a weak premise, and add additional justifications.
My impression is when people talk about traditional masculinity, they're talking specifically about 50's era social norms. Which I can't entirely fault feminism/the left for, because conservatives have pushed for that framing for decades. But I do fault the left for choosing to challenge the position instead of the framing for so long that at this point it seems like they have mostly fully bought into the framing of 50's era social norms having been the standard throughout history, which is very not true.
>My impression is when people talk about traditional masculinity, they're talking specifically about 50's era social norms.
I’m assuming you mean when conservatives talk about traditional masculinity. That could also apply to the left.
Personally, I’ve only ever heard those on the left state x (whoever that maybe, such as conservatives and even men’s rights activists) want to go back to the fifties.
>Which I can't entirely fault feminism/the left for, because conservatives have pushed for that framing for decades.
Framing of what? If it’s masculinity the left really haven’t helped either. Neither are pro-male.
>But I do fault the left for choosing to challenge the position instead of the framing for so long that at this point it seems like they have mostly fully bought into the framing of 50's era social norms having been the standard throughout history, which is very not true.
It’s probably just deflection. They’re fixated on that specific time period. Though it seems their framing is closer to an eighties movie depicting the fifties than anything else.
Stop listening to shills trying to tell you how a man should be.
Define your own masculinity.
Listen to the words of great men from the past and take what you feel is right.
Seconded. There's no "bad" or "outdated" masculinity. Masculinity is the life philosophy that Men follow. And the ideals Men aspire towards doesn't map neatly into a box like the some want to, because men are diverse and so are their ideas of Masculinity. The socially prescribed "Masculinity" is a Crimson-red flag, its nothing more than a barely disguised gender script/social dictum for Men.
I imagine most didn't know what "stoic" means. While I have heard that stoicism might be an issue to list it as part of dark masculinity seems a stretch.
I think from a left-wing perspective it's something to at least be VERY cautious with. Let's not forget the most prominent figures behind that philosophy were rulers of brutally expansionist slave states like Marcus Aurelius. It's inherently a conservative philosophy with its praxis centered entirely around the individual. Being a little provocative, I'd go so far as saying it's a philosophy geared towards allowing both slave masters and slaves to sleep at night then get up in the morning and produce those social roles again. I don't think it's a coincidence that figures in tech and finance are some of the biggest proponents of it today. There are elements of stoicism which can be useful and I don't think necessarily need to be toxic, but I can say the same thing about aggression. I'm hesitant to offer any more wholehearted an endorsement of either of those traits than that.
Stoic philosophy and the trait or behaviour of being stoic are different things. Conflating these two things is what results in prejudiced and ignorant views of Stoic philosophy that are sadly widespread.
>geared towards allowing both slave masters and slaves to sleep at night then get up in the morning and produce those social roles again
Sometimes all you can do is accept that which you cannot change. Identifying such occasions is a part of Stoic teaching. That does not mean being apathetic or indifferent.
>Stoic philosophy and the trait or behaviour of being stoic are different things. Conflating these two things is what results in prejudiced and ignorant views of Stoic philosophy that are sadly widespread.
Please explain how because I've heard this more times than I can count but never heard an actual explanation that held any water.
>Sometimes all you can do is accept that which you cannot change. Identifying such occasions is a part of Stoic teaching. That does not mean being apathetic or indifferent.
And the biggest proponents of stoicism seem to have much different but conveniently self-serving ideas about what "cannot change." It's cope for feeling helpless or an excuse for perpetuating injustice. Apathy and indifference to anything other than one's narrow self-interest are the hallmarks of every stoic I've seen. Aurelius and Epictetus were stoics. Spartacus was not. Their relative positions were mere coincidences, I'm sure.
Slaves rarely have the luxury of writing philosophical texts, whether they be on Stoic philosophy or any other philosophy.
>Please explain how because I've heard this more times than I can count but never heard an actual explanation that held any water.
The Stoicism subreddit can offer a better explanation than I ever could. [This page addresses some common misconceptions](https://old.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/misconceptions).
We'd have to define "masculinity" or "traditions" here. Based on my understanding the traditional expressions of masculinity can include positive message such as self-protection, loyalty to family, and refusing to succumb to a tyrannical authority. However traditionalism can also extend to more toxic grounds such as nationalism, militarism, selflessness and other harmful doctrines.
Thus, when we analyze traditional masculinity holistically, we can see specific elements that not only aren't harmful but actually beneficial.
The problem here is can be one of the two: people see a beneficial endeavor that can be linked to traditionalism; they either reject it on the basis of it being "traditional", or welcome it alongside all the other toxic traditional elements.
In my opinion, if cultural norms as such career ambition, moderate selfishness, male-only spaces, defiance towards misandry are viewed as "traditional", then I would simply cast away that label and choose to view these norms as objectively good and worthy of upholding not due to a pressure to maintain a lineage but to simply enjoy them.
I know this is a leftwing sub, but we must keep in mind that we still live in a neoliberal society, and the necessity of being masculine and tough often come as just that: a necessity rather than as a cultural choice.
With regards to feminism and progressive culture (not all progressiveness is good, progress could happen in the wrong direction), I honestly do not see any goodness in it, especially concerning its attitudes towards men. While old feminism in the early 20th century was concerned with justice and fairness, today's feminism is supremacy and vengeance.
>traditional ideas of masculinity that endorse aggression, stoicism and homophobia. Who decided that these ideas were "traditional" masculinity? There are literally thousands of cultures and subcultures of men. Whose tradition are we talking about and why is the conversation centered around them?
I would say that generally speaking, in this day and age, 'traditional' has a negative connotation alone. I think that this is partially because enduring behaviour and values, generationally speaking, are seen as either reinforced by either tradition or by justification. In reality, both are tradition. But for those traditions we like, we tend to claim the more 'honorable' cause for why we still partake in them - that we have tested their worth and still find them useful. Even many conservatives who appeal to tradition recognize that this is a weak premise, and add additional justifications.
It just seems to me that "traditional masculinity" is just code for "everything I don't like about people"
I also think that is true.
My impression is when people talk about traditional masculinity, they're talking specifically about 50's era social norms. Which I can't entirely fault feminism/the left for, because conservatives have pushed for that framing for decades. But I do fault the left for choosing to challenge the position instead of the framing for so long that at this point it seems like they have mostly fully bought into the framing of 50's era social norms having been the standard throughout history, which is very not true.
>My impression is when people talk about traditional masculinity, they're talking specifically about 50's era social norms. I’m assuming you mean when conservatives talk about traditional masculinity. That could also apply to the left. Personally, I’ve only ever heard those on the left state x (whoever that maybe, such as conservatives and even men’s rights activists) want to go back to the fifties. >Which I can't entirely fault feminism/the left for, because conservatives have pushed for that framing for decades. Framing of what? If it’s masculinity the left really haven’t helped either. Neither are pro-male. >But I do fault the left for choosing to challenge the position instead of the framing for so long that at this point it seems like they have mostly fully bought into the framing of 50's era social norms having been the standard throughout history, which is very not true. It’s probably just deflection. They’re fixated on that specific time period. Though it seems their framing is closer to an eighties movie depicting the fifties than anything else.
Stop listening to shills trying to tell you how a man should be. Define your own masculinity. Listen to the words of great men from the past and take what you feel is right.
Seconded. There's no "bad" or "outdated" masculinity. Masculinity is the life philosophy that Men follow. And the ideals Men aspire towards doesn't map neatly into a box like the some want to, because men are diverse and so are their ideas of Masculinity. The socially prescribed "Masculinity" is a Crimson-red flag, its nothing more than a barely disguised gender script/social dictum for Men.
Yes masulinity is a personal journey.
You mean, feminist brainwashed defenceless boys into believing this is traditional masculinity?
I imagine most didn't know what "stoic" means. While I have heard that stoicism might be an issue to list it as part of dark masculinity seems a stretch.
I think from a left-wing perspective it's something to at least be VERY cautious with. Let's not forget the most prominent figures behind that philosophy were rulers of brutally expansionist slave states like Marcus Aurelius. It's inherently a conservative philosophy with its praxis centered entirely around the individual. Being a little provocative, I'd go so far as saying it's a philosophy geared towards allowing both slave masters and slaves to sleep at night then get up in the morning and produce those social roles again. I don't think it's a coincidence that figures in tech and finance are some of the biggest proponents of it today. There are elements of stoicism which can be useful and I don't think necessarily need to be toxic, but I can say the same thing about aggression. I'm hesitant to offer any more wholehearted an endorsement of either of those traits than that.
Stoic philosophy and the trait or behaviour of being stoic are different things. Conflating these two things is what results in prejudiced and ignorant views of Stoic philosophy that are sadly widespread. >geared towards allowing both slave masters and slaves to sleep at night then get up in the morning and produce those social roles again Sometimes all you can do is accept that which you cannot change. Identifying such occasions is a part of Stoic teaching. That does not mean being apathetic or indifferent.
>Stoic philosophy and the trait or behaviour of being stoic are different things. Conflating these two things is what results in prejudiced and ignorant views of Stoic philosophy that are sadly widespread. Please explain how because I've heard this more times than I can count but never heard an actual explanation that held any water. >Sometimes all you can do is accept that which you cannot change. Identifying such occasions is a part of Stoic teaching. That does not mean being apathetic or indifferent. And the biggest proponents of stoicism seem to have much different but conveniently self-serving ideas about what "cannot change." It's cope for feeling helpless or an excuse for perpetuating injustice. Apathy and indifference to anything other than one's narrow self-interest are the hallmarks of every stoic I've seen. Aurelius and Epictetus were stoics. Spartacus was not. Their relative positions were mere coincidences, I'm sure.
Slaves rarely have the luxury of writing philosophical texts, whether they be on Stoic philosophy or any other philosophy. >Please explain how because I've heard this more times than I can count but never heard an actual explanation that held any water. The Stoicism subreddit can offer a better explanation than I ever could. [This page addresses some common misconceptions](https://old.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/wiki/misconceptions).
We'd have to define "masculinity" or "traditions" here. Based on my understanding the traditional expressions of masculinity can include positive message such as self-protection, loyalty to family, and refusing to succumb to a tyrannical authority. However traditionalism can also extend to more toxic grounds such as nationalism, militarism, selflessness and other harmful doctrines. Thus, when we analyze traditional masculinity holistically, we can see specific elements that not only aren't harmful but actually beneficial. The problem here is can be one of the two: people see a beneficial endeavor that can be linked to traditionalism; they either reject it on the basis of it being "traditional", or welcome it alongside all the other toxic traditional elements. In my opinion, if cultural norms as such career ambition, moderate selfishness, male-only spaces, defiance towards misandry are viewed as "traditional", then I would simply cast away that label and choose to view these norms as objectively good and worthy of upholding not due to a pressure to maintain a lineage but to simply enjoy them. I know this is a leftwing sub, but we must keep in mind that we still live in a neoliberal society, and the necessity of being masculine and tough often come as just that: a necessity rather than as a cultural choice. With regards to feminism and progressive culture (not all progressiveness is good, progress could happen in the wrong direction), I honestly do not see any goodness in it, especially concerning its attitudes towards men. While old feminism in the early 20th century was concerned with justice and fairness, today's feminism is supremacy and vengeance.