Western Civilization Depends On Men And Masculinity

[ll74]

Lol

 

[AlexBailey]

Newsflash: masculinity isn’t a relic; it’s the backbone behind every breakthrough, every code compiled, every machine powered up.

And sure, not only masculine men operate technology, but don’t pretend the men who built the technology and keep it running are suddenly irrelevant because you woke up from your ideology nap. Masculinity isn’t about exclusion; it’s about strength, resilience, and innovation, all qualities that built the modern world you love to claim as your own.

I work in tech. I’ve been involved in the field with implementing new technologies for decades.

Masculinity is mostly irrelevant, often in the way, especially when attached to egos of those in authority. A good technical mind and a healthy body are a far more important considerations than masculinity.

The masculine chest thumpers have their place. They can dig foundations and pour all the concrete they want - well, until concrete construction printers become more common.

 

[Rightguide]

I work in tech. I’ve been involved in the field with implementing new technologies for decades.

Masculinity is mostly irrelevant, often in the way, especially when attached to egos of those in authority. A good technical mind and a healthy body are a far more important considerations than masculinity.

The masculine chest thumpers have their place. They can dig foundations and pour all the concrete they want - well, until concrete construction printers become more common.

A man wearing a dress does send a message.

 

[Missmister]

American men are all hung up on their masculinity. I think that they feel they come up short..

 

[HisArpy]

You are conflating cultural norms with intrinsic ability. The premise of the post is that men are *uniquely necessary* for the survival of Western civilization. This argument requires men having specific skills or traits that women do not have, such that if we do not allow men to express those skills or traits, that Western civilization will collapse. But you are here admitting that women *could* do these jobs if Western civilization required them to. Making the original argument obsolete.

This is a straw man argument because women CANNOT do these jobs. These jobs require physical strength and endurance as well as tolerance for extreme environments and working conditions. Which is why my statements were tongue in cheek and also why you don't see women flocking to these jobs despite the very high pay.

Sure, I'll stipulate this. But no one is trying to stop men from doing those jobs, nor is anyone complaining that men do them.

The root of this thread is that without men doing these jobs civilization comes to a halt because the products/goods which are created from these jobs cease to exist. For instance, no oil = no plastics, no fuel, no clothes, no food, no shipping. The same applies to all the other jobs I listed and many more.

So, you tell me how 50 million people who live in major metro areas are going to survive without men doing any of that. The answer is they won't. Not can't, WON'T.

Can you find any significant effort to stop men from, say, becoming steelworkers or roofers? I'm certainly not aware of any. Moreover, there are countless *other* jobs that are equally as critical to Western Civilization that *women* tend to occupy, e.g. nurses, teachers, doctors. So it turns out that civilization is a team effort, and that men aren't somehow being forced to stop doing important physical labor. So what exactly is your complaint?

The entire leftist mysogynist rhetoric is aimed directly at this point. Toxic masculinity is the mantra of the Left and it's gotten so bad that you mental fuckwits have started lopping off the reproductive parts of boys.

Do, tell us how no one is trying to stop men from being men and keeping the lights on for civilization and I'll call you a liar again.

 

[HisArpy]

American men are all hung up on their masculinity. I think that they feel they come up short..

No matter how short they are, it's still more than you'll ever have.

 

[MythicMind]

More fantasy about “displaced masculine men”? They’ll be the ones building, programming, maintaining, and defending the very robots you’re so excited to worship. Civilization isn’t about replacing men with machines; it’s about men mastering machines. So if you want to talk about progress, start by admitting the indispensable role masculine men play, not just in your fever dreams but in reality.

Whenever anyone tries to define masculinity, it always becomes apparent that those traits aren't limited to men. There are, for instance, many women who are assertive, protective, competitive, industrious, decisive, rational, emotionally grounded, and courageous—all traits that are traditionally assigned to "masculine" men. Likewise, there are many men who are naturally cooperative, nurturing, kind, generous, thoughtful, and self-sacrificing—all traits that are traditionally assigned to "feminine" women.

And a healthy society requires the entire range of such traits, all of which are valuable in their place. And there is literally no one who disagrees with that principle.

As I told you before, the complaints aren't about "masculinity", they are about specific toxic behaviors—people who are not just assertive but aggressive, who use their strength to harm others rather than protect, who use their power to exploit others rather than lift them up, who are not decisive but coercive, who use their competitive nature to push people down to second class status, and so on. And it just so happens that a lot of the people who act that way are men.

In short, you are complaining about an imaginary problem while avoiding the real problem.

Now, I know you will just brush all this aside, but these facts all undermine your thesis. But there it is for anyone with eyes to see.

 

[MythicMind]

This is a straw man argument because women CANNOT do these jobs.

You said, and I quote, "women don't traditionally fill those roles. Not because they're not allowed but because they're GENERALLY not equipped for them physically." And you're right. So, I accurately reflected your argument—women CAN do these jobs, they either don't traditionally or because fewer of them have the physical capability.

The root of this thread is that without men doing these jobs civilization comes to a halt because the products/goods which are created from these jobs cease to exist.

Which happens all the time, and yet somehow civilization keeps marching along.

Do, tell us how no one is trying to stop men from being men and keeping the lights on for civilization and I'll call you a liar again.

Here's how I know you are you the liar—because men keep existing. Yes, even men who are assertive, protective, competitive, industrious, decisive, rational, emotionally grounded, and courageous. They are all over the place. If you don't see them, I think that's a you-problem.

 

[AlexBailey]

A man wearing a dress does send a message.

What kind of message are you looking for?

Do skirts signal sex to you? Is that why masculine men get upset when they see a guy they clock as pretty?

 

[HisArpy]

You said, and I quote, "women don't traditionally fill those roles. Not because they're not allowed but because they're GENERALLY not equipped for them physically." And you're right. So, I accurately reflected your argument—women CAN do these jobs, they either don't traditionally or because fewer of them have the physical capability.

Spin doctor it any way you want, what I said was true and undeniable.

Which happens all the time, and yet somehow civilization keeps marching along.

Really? You're that far into denialism that you don't understand what is required to keep you housed, fed, warm, and clothed?

Here's how I know you are you the liar—because men keep existing. Yes, even men who are assertive, protective, competitive, industrious, decisive, rational, emotionally grounded, and courageous. They are all over the place. If you don't see them, I think that's a you-problem.

I'm not even going to try to decipher this load of crap.

 

[AlexBailey]

Spin doctor it any way you want, what I said was true and undeniable.



Really? You're that far into denialism that you don't understand what is required to keep you housed, fed, warm, and clothed?



I'm not even going to try to decipher this load of crap.

Will you admit that there are women who are far stronger and more self-sufficient than you are?

 

[HisArpy]

So we can at least agree that both men and women are generally capable of fulfilling the same roles - great

However, your arguments in this thread seem to be based on the idea that there is some kind of very special list of jobs that are the only ones important for western civilization. I don't know how you decided on that particular list of jobs. You probably see it as self-evident - but it isn't. I, for one, don't see why such a list would be focused mostly on manual labour and completely ignore critical roles like doctors, nurses and teachers.

If you actually want to try to sway some opinions, you'll probably need to explain your rationale for that list better.

Ah, no.

Critical roles of doctors/etc exist solely because someone produces the essential stuff for those roles. Without plastic doctors have no medical tools/machines. Without fuel, civilization has no ability to generate power in the quantities needed (nuclear could do it but the greenies don't like nuke power and hydroelectric is already beyond its power demand capabilities). Further, without fuel good/materials/food cannot be shipped or kept fresh.

Men do the things required for those demands. Women don't do them because they cannot handle the physical demands of the job. Essentially, they aren't equipped for it because NATURE (note; not ME) decided that women have a different set of physical/mental traits.


So you begin with a flawed premise that we're equal and try to justify it by looking at end products rather than where those products originated and who did the work for that. This is the exact same kind of thinking which greenies use to justify EV's by saying that electricity used to charge them is cheaper than gasoline. Except it isn't because the generators burn fuel to produce electricity and every time you convert energy from one form to another there are losses. Those losses are enough to make EV's more expensive to recharge than filling the tank for an ICE engine. It also doesn't account for the fuels used to mine, manufacture, and transport green energy components.

But those who tout a specific "alternative," or in this case "bias against men," reflexively discount opposing views regardless of the validity of those views or the data-driven facts behind them. This is wehre you're at when even the most ardent supporter of equality/equity could see the flaws in their position if they'd only give a few minutes reflecting on the differences between men and women and their inherent abilities.

But, given that the Left has a difficult time defining what a woman is; that kind of reflection is going to be difficult until you toss out the crap that's been fed to you by those with a political agenda.

 

[Hel_Books]

Well then, explain it's relevance to what was being discussed and how it doesn't match your usual style of slinging insults as a matter of course.

Silly boy. You said, "What can I say, my lap is filled with pussy every day."

Of course you haven't anything to back up that boast, so I simply reminded you that on the internet, nobody can tell . . .

. . . if you're tall or short.

. . . if you're a man or a woman.

. . . if you're a stud or an incel.

. . . etc. etc. etc.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
If your idea of "depends" is that it's men what keep civilisation on the Caligula/Torquemada/Mussolini track, and you're somehow proud of that, then you're simply demented!

Civilization doesn't care who writes the rules. Civilization cares about keeping the lights on and food on the table and that no one is going to come along and just take your stuff.

You keep trying to equate civilization with society and then complain that society is the problem because you're not able to just go take whatever it is you want because "the rules" won't let you.

I don't recall posting any comments about how it's a problem that rules are supposed to keep civilisation from descending into anarchy.

Currently, of course, there's a problem with the people writing the rules using them to do the taking, like fiddling the tax code to avoid paying their fair share, cutting environmental safety so they can make a few more pennies while taking away other people's health, etc. etc. etc., you know, that kind of "taking whatever you want"!

 

[HisArpy]

(1) Women are capable of close combat (don't believe me? Google "women in the Ukrainian army")

OMG, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Try this for a dose of reality:

You can skip to 3:13 for the first actual exchange. Up to that point she's bouncing around and kicking at him. Eventually he realizes that she's got nothing and pretty much stops reacting to her kicks.

She does get a good punch in at 4:09 but that just pisses him off and she loses that exchange after he engages.

If this had been a real fight; at 4:13 she's done. The rest of the video only proves it conclusively.

At 4:48 he's beating on her and she has no defense until he let's her go.

7:51 and she's done for again.

8:05 for the final time.

And yes, they declared there was no "winner" but it's obvious there was and it wasn't her. BTW, she's a trained Karate fighter and he's a "street fighter" so she supposedly was sufficiently trained in self defense and still couldn't hold her own.

 

[AlexBailey]

This is the exact same kind of thinking which greenies use to justify EV's by saying that electricity used to charge them is cheaper than gasoline. Except it isn't because the generators burn fuel to produce electricity and every time you convert energy from one form to another there are losses. Those losses are enough to make EV's more expensive to recharge than filling the tank for an ICE engine. It also doesn't account for the fuels used to mine, manufacture, and transport green energy components.

Oh come on, loser. You never pay attention in class.

EVs can charge from a petroleum fueled generator and go farther than putting the same amount of fuel in a vehicle.

Part of the reason this works is because compared to ICE vehicles, EVs don’t idle, their power curves are far more efficient for acceleration, and they can make use of regenerative breaking. EVs also don’t spew emissions in population centers.

Fuel for grid power can be delivered to convenient locations for power plants, much more efficiently than delivering fuel to neighborhood gas stations.

Battery technology is still developing and will continue to improve, but it’s already cost effective for replacing internal combustion vehicles - even without tax credits.


You’re lying little turd of an excuse for a man.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh come on, loser. You never pay attention in class.

EVs can charge from a petroleum fueled generator and go farther than putting the same amount of fuel in a vehicle.

Part of the reason this works is because compared to ICE vehicles, EVs don’t idle, their power curves are far more efficient for acceleration, and they can make use of regenerative breaking. EVs also don’t spew emissions in population centers.

Fuel for grid power can be delivered to convenient locations for power plants, much more efficiently than delivering fuel to neighborhood gas stations.

Battery technology is still developing and will continue to improve, but it’s already cost effective for replacing internal combustion vehicles - even without tax credits.


You’re lying little turd of an excuse for a man.

Right. Because physics doesn't exist in your greenie world.

Get real dudly.

 

[HisArpy]

Green energy is a SCAM. The data behind it is faked.

Take for example fuel (gas or diesel or kerosene). To get fuel you have to pump it out of the ground, pump it through a pipeline to a refinery, refine it, pump or transport the refined fuel to the point of distribution and use, then burn it to produce energy.

To operate the pump you need electricity which comes from burning fuel to spin the generators that are hooked up to the power grid. To operate the pumps for the pipelines, you need more electrical power from those fuel burning generators. You're also going to need fuel for the refining of the crude into usable fuel and then transporting that refined fuel to the point of use.

Even discounting the energy needed for the infrastructure required to do all this you're still looking at conversion losses for each and every stage.

And yet you believe that it's more efficient to burn fuel to produce electricity to charge an EV without realizing that somewhere in your belief system there's a reliance on perpetual motion.

That you believe there is such a thing as perpetual motion only shows that you don't really understand physics or the real world and instead are relying on the LIES you're being fed by those who have an agenda to control you.

Because you cannot pump oil, refine it, burn it, and then use the energy created by the burning fuel to generate the electricity needed to pump the same amount of oil you just used. Because there's no such thing as perpetual motion.

And you certainly cannot get MORE energy out of the oil than is put into it.

 

[Rightguide]

Whenever anyone tries to define masculinity, it always becomes apparent that those traits aren't limited to men. There are, for instance, many women who are assertive, protective, competitive, industrious, decisive, rational, emotionally grounded, and courageous—all traits that are traditionally assigned to "masculine" men. Likewise, there are many men who are naturally cooperative, nurturing, kind, generous, thoughtful, and self-sacrificing—all traits that are traditionally assigned to "feminine" women.

Thanks for the diversity 101, Captain Obvious. No one’s denying women can be assertive or men can be nurturing, that’s not the point. The real issue is how masculine men are often repelled by masculine traits in women. It’s not about women having strength or courage; it’s about losing the balance that makes relationships work. Masculine energy, strength, leadership, and resilience is what built civilization and created attraction. When women try to adopt those traits wholesale, it often backfires, pushing men away instead of drawing them closer. Blurring the lines until everything means nothing isn’t progress, it’s confusion dressed up as ideology. So yes, women can have these traits, but don’t act surprised when men want a partner who complements, not competes with, their masculinity. As an aside, I'd like to point out your name is quite fitting.

 

[AlexBailey]

Right. Because physics doesn't exist in your greenie world.

Get real dudly.

Physics are at work here.

Please continue proving again how you can’t think past single exchanges of the energy transference from fuel to the wheels.

 

[HisArpy]

Physics are at work here.

Please continue proving again how you can’t think past single exchanges of the energy transference from fuel to the wheels.

You cannot get more energy out than what you put in. This is incontrovertible physics and it doesn't matter what the energy is used for or how the power usage is engineered to function.

Even a transformer has losses and it has no moving parts at all.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

What a stupid example.
Karate is a sport that follows rules.
One of those girls would probably kick his arse and then wipe the floor with his remains.

 

[MythicMind]

Spin doctor it any way you want, what I said was true and undeniable.

You haven't shared any facts at all, just ideological nonsense.

Really? You're that far into denialism that you don't understand what is required to keep you housed, fed, warm, and clothed?

If you think (a) that jobs don't disappear all the time, and (b) only men can keep me housed, fed, warm, and clothed, then trust me, I'm not the one in denial.

I'm not even going to try to decipher this load of crap.

Of course you won't. Because if you did, you would realize that your entire ideological worldview is built on sand.

 

[MythicMind]

OMG, I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Try this for a dose of reality:

Sure, it's easy to laugh if you move the goal posts, which is really just a way of conceding my point. I never said "hand to hand combat," I said "close combat". Wait...were you under the impression that civilization is only being held up by kung fu guys? Were you not aware that soldiers use weapons? Oh man, now I'm the one laughing. Of course, it makes me cry, too, since there is no real reason you should be this ignorant of reality. But, here you are...

 

[stxjimmy]

Green energy is a SCAM. The data behind it is faked.

Take for example fuel (gas or diesel or kerosene). To get fuel you have to pump it out of the ground, pump it through a pipeline to a refinery, refine it, pump or transport the refined fuel to the point of distribution and use, then burn it to produce energy.

To operate the pump you need electricity which comes from burning fuel to spin the generators that are hooked up to the power grid. To operate the pumps for the pipelines, you need more electrical power from those fuel burning generators. You're also going to need fuel for the refining of the crude into usable fuel and then transporting that refined fuel to the point of use.

Even discounting the energy needed for the infrastructure required to do all this you're still looking at conversion losses for each and every stage.

And yet you believe that it's more efficient to burn fuel to produce electricity to charge an EV without realizing that somewhere in your belief system there's a reliance on perpetual motion.

That you believe there is such a thing as perpetual motion only shows that you don't really understand physics or the real world and instead are relying on the LIES you're being fed by those who have an agenda to control you.

Because you cannot pump oil, refine it, burn it, and then use the energy created by the burning fuel to generate the electricity needed to pump the same amount of oil you just used. Because there's no such thing as perpetual motion.

And you certainly cannot get MORE energy out of the oil than is put into it.

Does it not occur to you that the sun is in perpetual motion, and that’s it’s a guaranteed source of clean energy that only our present technological impasse prevents us from fully taking advantage of.