enlightenment vs. survival

ok so i was checking my email and came across this article basically dealing with nature vs. nurture of men in modern society. in the feminist quest for equality have men really lost the ability to survive? i agree with some of the author's points regarding the cultural weakening of men...if you think about it we're still animals, if you cage an animal long enough it loses the will and ability to survive on its own. modern society has caged and condemned many...personally i find it difficult to "play" by societal expectations all the time....sometimes i have to remind myself that "i am man"...i believe that there can be a balance somewhere in there but it requires both sexes to work together to achieve a mutual understanding...can that happen? who knows...

here's the article...
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/20/when-the-zombies-attack-enlightened-males-will-be-the-first-to-fall/

That male 'fight' instinct boils down to sacrifice I think, more then survival. The cognitive brake against the 'fight' response becomes survival given the opportunity, capabilities and circumstance mostly thanks to our relatively larger prefrontal cortex (probably), but to me 'enlightenment' is just the appropriate retention and expansion of that cognitive self above and beyond instinctual urge.

But I think what the article is referring to is when that process goes so far it removes any connection to those base instinctual urges.... or perhaps it would be more accurate to say they become redefined in some nature of ways that it runs the risk of losing connection to them.

So in that way and to play along with the theme, maybe there is 3 types of 'man' in relation to this modern environment; low cognitive adaption or transformation, high cognitive adaption, high cognitive transformation. I tend to like to imagine the Jedi path has the ingredients to support that high cognitive adaption and perhaps even sufficient material to support high cognitive transformation in such a way it still technically falls within the adaption category!? In other words the best of both worlds


But I think women have enough of their own problems to worry so much about making men feel more comfortable about themselves. Certainly a partner would/should/could be more willing and able to have a better individual understanding and self interest to provide that level of support. Which begs the question, should men be trying to help women connect with their instinctual urges and if so what are they? Hopefully not exercising mate selection....
:pinch:

....I...

I cant....

This article is incredibly harmful from where I'm standing.

With a few exceptions, modern humans have essentially removed themselves from the kind of environment where the kind of "survival" that they're talking about exists. In developed countries, people don't walk around expecting that a wild animal a will jump out at them, and laws mostly protect from that same risk from other humans.

Men who aren't controlled by primal urges like violence and copulation are not sub-standard. And as far as I know, the vast majority of women do not demonize men. Sure there is the odd crazy who does, but that is not the norm. And I think it's natural for us to pick fun at each other's differences from time to time...but demonize? "Men are to be seen, not heard"!?!?

Oh man, I'm really trying not to give in to the knee-jerk reaction that this article caused....but I'm interested to hear what the men have to say about it. As a woman, I'm incredibly insulted that someone would write something like this.

Leah Starspectre wrote: As a woman, I'm incredibly insulted that someone would write something like this.

bear in mind this was written by a young woman based on her observations of an educator (a female educator) in an academic setting...

i have noticed though that most men that i would consider "wishy washy" or "pussies" as she so eloquently put it would nearly always fall under the "enlightened" category. they often lack the aggressiveness needed to fight or the courage needed to sacrifice themselves to save others...meanwhile men that are a tad uncouth are labeled as chauvanists, "assholes", etc...

the feminist movement has made it difficult for men to find that point where they don't lose their natural instincts needed for survival yet still become "domesticated" enough for societal life...we try our best...

i admire the men that can go their whole lives without having to rely on their more primal selves rather than pity them...but i don't want to lose what makes me, me to become one...the world needs both types...the enlightened ones are needed to be the conscience, the primal ones are needed to keep them alive...

Leah Starspectre wrote: ....I...
This article is incredibly harmful from where I'm standing.
As a woman, I'm incredibly insulted that someone would write something like this.

How is an idea/s that you do not agree with harmful? Just because you do not see their arguements as valid does not mean its harmful. In fact that is one step above calling to silence people. Because if it does harm we must do something about it no?

As far as people not being attacked by people or animals commonly yes thats true. However its not the common that kills you. Its not the every day cooking that burns your house down, its the one time you slip up and forget the stove and are not prepared to fight a fire. Its not the everyday drive or hike that kills you, its the one time mother nature decides to slap you and remind you she still is in charge. Its not the average walk to the store that bad things happen on, its the one time some robber decides YOU are the target.

I do not own a fire extinguisher because I regularly have fires. I have it for the freak accidents. I do not keep Sterno and food/water supplies on hand because I often need them. No I do it for the times where a snow storm shuts power and transport down for two weeks ( happened to me my first winter home to Connecticut) or when the water main bursts and it takes five days to fix ( happened to me about four months ago) I do not own a gun because its common to get robbed but I have had a home invasion happen and my presenting my shotgun very well may have saved three lives that day.

So yes its not common for these things to happen but its not bad or odd to prep for them. In fact it makes sense considering most governments response times will leave you to deal with anything bad for enough time that things can go south real bad.

You say that the vast majority of women do not demonize men but men get more time for the same crimes ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html) Men are shafted in divorces all the time. A man that landed a freaking prob on a comet is demonized for wearing a shirt of anime women made for him by a female friend of his. Yet you cant see why some men might feel under attack? Just the other day you asked me to look at peoples fears through their eyes but you do not seem to be doing that here. I am not agreeing with the article. I am not disagreeing with it. I am saying that these ideas do not pop up out of no where and we should look at why a person might feel this way before we label a feeling "harmful" and get insulted.

I'm in constant struggle between my primal urges and the more "enlightened" thoughts and regulation of my urges. It reflects in my kids, all boys, and I have to sit them down sometimes to talk to them about how I'm working on not being so... hurtful in my words and actions. It's unfortunate that they've had to experience it, but that's life, sometimes. My wife, as sweet as she can be... well, I won't go there, right now. Not in this avenue. Not the place for it. Given that I had the skills to teach about survival and "bushwhacking," I'd be doing that with my boys. Honestly, I think if those who are not of the "enlightened" variation spent more time with young males, teaching them some skills, there'd be more of a payoff for society, in the long run, not to mention the satisfaction the teachers would get from passing practical skills to future generations. Oh, wait. There are the boy scouts. Does that count? Sure. I'm of the mind to learn all these skills I talk about and teach kids for free, instead of making them join a club. (Nothing wrong with clubs, but it's something that holds my wife and me back from putting our kids into it.) That's where I think it's important to start: the youth. Just as Joseph Campbell talked about, men in some tribes consider boys men once they pass the trial. These days, boys don't have those trials and don't know what it means to pass from boyhood to manhood. It's something I wish I had growing up, but society makes it difficult for men to be men, sometimes. I'm not resentful, but I'm a person of action and I just can't psychologically stand by and let that type of thing happen to my boys, too.

Leah Starspectre wrote: With a few exceptions, modern humans have essentially removed themselves from the kind of environment where the kind of "survival" that they're talking about exists.

I think its a thing still because testosterone tends to gear guys into that mode of thinking regardless of the actual environment. It tends to drive a 'to the death' type of feeling, whether it be fighting, eating or procreating. I'm talking about base instincts here obviously, not normal human behaviour. Humans have higher order thought which overlays those base instincts. But when confronted with removal from them, perhaps there is a sensation of not being true to ones inner self. But higher order thought is not foreign to who we are. The struggle for those who find it hard might be trying to process the best and most effective way to integrate their subconscious drives with their higher conscious awareness. I've even heard that the subconscious might use a more familiar instinct to drag conscious attention inwards for some other reason.... just to confuse the issue, meaning what we feel as imbalance might not even be what is required to fix the imbalance!!

I'm fairly certain that it's not about "domesticating men" All humans have primal urges (women included: we've got biological clocks, "Mama Bear" responses, and extreme female competition over men), and "enlightened" society is meant not to remove these urges, but to control them. Yes, there are dangerous things that happen from time to time that require us to tap into those instincts, but to accuse women/feminists of essentially castrating men is what I take offense with.

And yes, there will always be bias on either side (men get shafted in divorces, women get shafted in the workplace), because we're quintessentially different. But I hardly call that "demonizing." And sure, you could bring up comet guy, but I can bring up any number of women who have been attacked by men for being in a place/field they "don't belong in" or for wearing something on TV/in public that is "slutty"... There is no point in polarizing our differences, that just creates more conflict. And I think that's what this article does, which is why it's harmful.

What would happen if we flipped the genders in this article and made it about how "enlightened" women today are losing touch with their maternal instincts. They're becoming too powerful and forgetting that there are children in the world that need care and men who need to spread their seed. Schools are encouraging women to become leaders - in other words to be more masculine. Women have always been to be seen and not heard, but now they're being asked to speak up? Women are the vessels of life for goodness' sake!! We have taken the mothers and nurturers of the world and put them into martial arts training and leadership courses. What emerged was a new problem: The enlightened female!

I believe that we should all be able to tap into our instincts, but not be rules by them. I'm more than just a womb, just as men are more than just a weapon. What I find insulting about this article is not that I disagree with it, but that it's portraying men who are able to control their basest urges as less-than-men. And in my books, that's contrary to the whole notion of balance and enlightenment.

I will admit that I only skimmed the article.

Firstly, I agree with Leah in that this is not a gender issue as much as the article would make us believe. Personally I view it as a society thing affecting both genders, "Enlightened people" having issues surviving and defending themselves. Like Benedict Cumberbatch said in Star Trek Into Darkness "He wanted to exploit my savagery. Intellect alone is useless. You can't even break a rule how could you be expected to break bone."

Now, I also believe that there can be people who are both. I like to think of myself as at least slightly enlightened but I also teach martial arts, carry a gun, ride a motorcycle that I can fix by myself to an extent, and I genuinely enjoy camping and "roughing it" so to speak. I'm not a survivalist by any means (I've never gone hunting and would fail miserably at it for quite some time until I figured it out) but I like to think that I am somewhat "manly" in a Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor sort of way.

Actually, Home Improvement is an interesting study in the concepts of "Manliness." You've got Tim, the stereotypical man who grunts and builds cars and always feels the need to give things more power. You've got Al who can cook, is sensitive, yet has a beard, dresses like a lumberjack, and is actually better at all the construction stuff than Tim is. You've also got the neighbor Wilson who is by far the most "enlightened" person on the show but is still "manly" in many ways. Then you have Jill, the once stay at home mom who goes back to school and becomes a psychologist and a fierce feminist. Many episodes, almost all of them actually, are devoted to challenging Tim's sense of manliness and he is forced to learn and become more "enlightened" yet in the end it never takes away from his actual "manliness." In fact, many might argue that in his later, more enlightened state he can be considered even more manly. He's able to move past the surface, socially dictated concepts of being a man and just be a genuine human being.

Hmmm, part of the evil feminist agenda, or an environment where the ability to survive is no longer down to a mans ability to hunt for his own food or protect his property and person by force.

Personally I find cheeseburgers super easy to hunt and kill.