Masculinity is Killing Men

Locksley wrote: I still think this topic is only operating a certain level of the discussion (for the most part anyway). it's not about sex (as in reproductive organs) it's about the social and cognitive aspects of "femininity" and "masculinity" under the broad historical and present political contexts.

I feel like we're missing something here. :huh:

What if they (an/some amount of them) are derived from the sex though, doesn't delinking them run the risk of increasing the separation from body & mind!?

Certainly if one believes in an distinct 'spirit', and then that it perhaps that could constitute its own gender - then maybe spiritual resonance could become about matching the body and mind to that spirit.

It's an interesting topic for sure, so many options to explore!!!

CryojenX wrote:

ren wrote:

Yes, it's true that men are responsible for the corruption of the masculine ideal.

I have yet to hear a single man share what his masculine ideal is. Seriously.

Competition has always (and probably always will) be seen as a masculine trait

Really? I see it as the opposite. Blokes are quite happy to settle and have a pint. Women are vicious until the end. They even compete against their friends!

We have not outgrown our ancestors, and there's not enough technology to make our evolution catch up with our society.

Synthetic organs (not, not that thing that looks like a piano) are a reality today.
The synthetic baby is not far away. Can you imagine? You won't have to adopt or even be gay to have a kid. No sexual involvement whatsoever.
But we have that ridiculous notion that there will continue to be gender relations, or even sexual reproduction for our genus in the future, even though absolutely everything points in the opposite direction.

It would be well to remember that the use of sweeping generalizations of traits of either gender are inherently harmful to both, and in my personal opinion, are rather unbecoming of Jedi.

Uh, have you seen what this thread is about, and what is being discussed here? If you don't like it, don't join in. The same applies to the whole jedi thing.

CryojenX wrote:

ren wrote: I'm not sure looking at dangerous jobs or a low consumption of medical resources is a good way of supporting the argument that "masculinity kills". I think in the end that's what will make men the dominant specie when sexual reproduction becomes redundant.

Men and women as different species? Your vocabulary betrays you my friend.

What does it betray exactly? My ability to understand basic biological taxonomy? The day men and women stop producing fertile offspring, they will be different species. Because that's what the definition of a specie is. Your reaction only reinforces my argument.

It would be well to remember that the use of sweeping generalizations of traits of either gender are inherently harmful to both, and in my personal opinion, are rather unbecoming of Jedi.

Uh, have you seen what this thread is about, and what is being discussed here? If you don't like it, don't join in. The same applies to the whole jedi thing.

Actually I am well aware of the topic of discussion, I simply find it interesting that in a topic devoted to how sweeping generalizations of one gender are hurting it, sweeping generalizations of the other are left unchecked.

Blokes are quite happy to settle and have a pint. Women are vicious until the end. They even compete against their friends!

Exhibit A. ^^

As for whether or not I should have joined in the conversation. I felt I might have some insight to offer, given that my transgender status - male assigned at birth - allows me a unique perspective on the subject of gender discussions. However, I find your attitude towards participation in the thread, and in Jediism in particular, rather rude, and also evidencing a further need for self-reflection.

I'm not sure looking at dangerous jobs or a low consumption of medical resources is a good way of supporting the argument that "masculinity kills". I think in the end that's what will make men the dominant specie when sexual reproduction becomes redundant.

Men and women as different species? Your vocabulary betrays you my friend.

What does it betray exactly? My ability to understand basic biological taxonomy? The day men and women stop producing fertile offspring, they will be different species. Because that's what the definition of a specie is. Your reaction only reinforces my argument.

Firstly, I find it unfortunate that you feel men and women have so little in common that either one would necessarily need to become dominant over the other. Do we not, as Jedi, seek to further the goals of communication and reciprocity here?

Secondly, yes, your understanding of biological taxonomy is flawed in this case. Men and women do not become different species when they stop procreating with one another, but rather when they are no longer genetically compatible to procreate with one another. Just because technology may exist in the future that makes sexual reproduction redundant, it does not necessarily follow that no humans will ever still feel compelled to act on the biological urge to mate, and even if by accident, have offspring. If even just one couple engages in this, in your line of thinking, they would be of the same specie, and then not, and then so, again and again any time someone decides to buck the status quo of reproduction.

So yes. I stand behind my statement.

Shadow Masculine is destroy men and the world. Masculinity is a wonderful and beautiful thing. We just need to be in correct and creative orientation with it.

We need to love into our masculine so it can heal!

you cant seperate masculinity from biology

the very word "masculinity" is a reference to the psychological developments and expressions which are specifically the results of biological constitution

biology as the framework within which psychology develops

"little boy" rhesus monkeys have been shown to favor toy trucks

"little girl" chimps have been observed carrying sticks and treating them like baby dolls

just how precise the boundaries are is still unclear, but there is a definite biological foundation to the psychological states we refer to as "masculine" and "feminine"

Actually I am well aware of the topic of discussion, I simply find it interesting that in a topic devoted to how sweeping generalizations of one gender are hurting it, sweeping generalizations of the other are left unchecked.

Actually what this thread has done is demonize masculinity. As to what masculinity is, which i have questioned, remains to be shared by anyone here. What we do knowfrom reading this is that it's bad for men though, and men are to blame. A feminist's arse couldn't have said it better.

Exhibit A. ^^

As for whether or not I should have joined in the conversation. I felt I might have some insight to offer, given that my transgender status - male assigned at birth - allows me a unique perspective on the subject of gender discussions. However, I find your attitude towards participation in the thread, and in Jediism in particular, rather rude, and also evidencing a further need for self-reflection.

I often make comments regarding my observations. Maybe I see wrong, and sometimes I do. But to be perfectly honest I make observations, make predictions based on those observations, and guess what, they turn out right the vast majority of the time. Which is fortunate considering the type of work I have done in the past.
I must note however, that as someone who has been on the Jedi path a long time, much longer than most here in fact, I refrain from making comments as to how "jedi" something is or isn't. I think of it as "knowing better".

Firstly, I find it unfortunate that you feel men and women have so little in common that either one would necessarily need to become dominant over the other. Do we not, as Jedi, seek to further the goals of communication and reciprocity here?

The ways of the Force are: there always is a dominant specie. Two different things are necessarily unequal and will therefore experience different degrees of success at any particular task. The one that experiences better overall success at a set of tasks is said to be dominant. It is something you have benefited from yourself, and it is something future generations will also experience, even if you feel it is inappropriate or rude, it's just not down to you mighty jedi.

Secondly, yes, your understanding of biological taxonomy is flawed in this case. Men and women do not become different species when they stop procreating with one another, but rather when they are no longer genetically compatible to procreate with one another. Just because technology may exist in the future that makes sexual reproduction redundant, it does not necessarily follow that no humans will ever still feel compelled to act on the biological urge to mate, and even if by accident, have offspring. If even just one couple engages in this, in your line of thinking, they would be of the same specie, and then not, and then so, again and again any time someone decides to buck the status quo of reproduction.

My understanding is perfectly fine, thank you very much. genetic compatibility has nothing to do with specie classification because, well, most living things on earth are perfectly genetically compatible. How else do you think they're putting salmon DNA in strawberries? The ability to naturally produce fertile offspring is what makes us the same specie. If we choose not to do it, if we are incapable of doing it because the plug doesn't fit the socket, or if we I don't know, EAT whatever comes out of there, it all comes down to this: no fertile offspring produced.
We are losing this ability (for a variety of reasons, including social ones apparently), we will therefore one day not be the same specie, or be extinct.
This is nothing new. It has happened before and will happen again, the difference being this time around that there'll be a mean of survival despite a loss of natural reproductive abilities. Something which as far as we know, no lifeform in the universe has ever achieved.
I really don't see why you have a problem with it. Since you keep on bringing this up, as a Jedi, I support the arrival of such technology, which will allow people like yourself, homosexuals, asexuals, and others to have children without the need for donors, female involvement, or the rejects of others.

For a jedi, you seem incredibly touchy-feely about something which, let's be frank, you won't even witness if it does eventually happen. Yes I'd bet men would become a more successful specie than women, but no-one alive today will witness that, so it's not like I'm planning to collect on my winnings. Gender relations are getting worse, why try to force things? Let people do their own thing and see how it turns out.

CryojenX wrote: As for whether or not I should have joined in the conversation. I felt I might have some insight to offer, given that my transgender status - male assigned at birth - allows me a unique perspective on the subject of gender discussions. However, I find your attitude towards participation in the thread, and in Jediism in particular, rather rude, and also evidencing a further need for self-reflection.

Here here! Well said.

But the fact of the matter is that this discussion never had a hope of going anywhere really interesting, at least not when we started wandering into random discussions about (what sounds to me like) a dystopian scifi comic pandering to a "men's rights activist" dream of the future.

After a while I must admit I just sort of want to stop posting altogether. :pinch:

ren wrote: Really? I see it as the opposite. Blokes are quite happy to settle and have a pint. Women are vicious until the end. They even compete against their friends!

1. That's a sexist comment, not a benign generalization.
2. You're talking about conflict resolution, not competition. Men can be competitive and still resolve conflicts easily.

ren wrote: Synthetic organs (not, not that thing that looks like a piano) are a reality today.
The synthetic baby is not far away. Can you imagine? You won't have to adopt or even be gay to have a kid. No sexual involvement whatsoever.
But we have that ridiculous notion that there will continue to be gender relations, or even sexual reproduction for our genus in the future, even though absolutely everything points in the opposite direction.

There will be. Synthetic organs (and children) have literally zero impact when it comes to fighting our primordial impulses. Our ideas of scientific advancement and civilization make us feel like we're not monkeys playing with fire, when really, we haven't evolved nearly half as far as we'd like to think since the beginning of recorded history. That's one of the problems with modern society--we've thrown a dress on the wolf and considered it tamed.

ren wrote: Actually what this thread has done is demonize masculinity.

Someone hasn't actually been reading the thread.

ren wrote: I must note however, that as someone who has been on the Jedi path a long time, much longer than most here in fact...

Well, I suppose when 900 years we reach, gripe as much we will not, eh?

ren wrote: The ways of the Force are: there always is a dominant specie. Two different things are necessarily unequal and will therefore experience different degrees of success at any particular task. The one that experiences better overall success at a set of tasks is said to be dominant. It is something you have benefited from yourself, and it is something future generations will also experience, even if you feel it is inappropriate or rude, it's just not down to you mighty jedi.

1. I don't recall English being your native language, but for reference, gender and biological sex != species. There isn't a "male/female" species. There's a male/female of the species. This is important because the major point in the definition of a species is that they be genetically similar enough to interbreed or exchange genetic information.
2. The fact that two things are not equal does not automatically necessitate one being superior. Men and women are not equal (in a broad generic sense) in ability. Men perform some tasks better than women on average, and vice versa. This does not, however, mean that one is superior to the other.
3. In case nobody else is willing to tell you, ren, so far in this thread you're the only one being inappropriate and rude.

Thank you steam for cracking open a much needed can of Mace Windu.