Question to men : what's your description of masculinity?

[Nemra]

2 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

 

 

 

What would it be called if someone got something from each side of the list? 🤔

[NoSelfSelf]

5 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

It's the opposite, selfless.

Masculinity is formed in the abandonment of libidinal investment towards the image of the self (imaginary in Lacan, and the imaginary order in general) for the investment on external objects (and symbolic order in general)

"Love for oneself" resembles the neurotic tendency (that we all have more or less) to cut off the phallus in order to actually limit the capacity of the signifier to castrate us, and thus to overcome the crisis of secondary narcissism.

It is the fascist, self-denying strategy of "You can't castrate me, since I no longer have a phallus" by cutting you off from the outside world (signifiers), but in fact you expose yourself to relational and even sexual problems because you don't recognize the mirror.

 

To become selfless you must love yourself singlemindedly,you are not in a position to be selfless its a pipedream.What you guys get wrong is that man is a selfish person, but selfless lover.For those who showed their worth to you, but worth to you is does she look good and is sex good.

Edited October 5 by NoSelfSelf

[Buck Edwards]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

What would it be called if someone got something from each side of the list? 🤔

I think it is already the case, however I do believe that fundamental biological differences between male and female make us different. We're similar yet different. 

[Buck Edwards]

1 minute ago, NoSelfSelf said:

To become selfless you must love yourself singlemindedly,you are not in a position to be selfless its a pipedream.What you guys get wrong is that man is a selfish person, but selfless lover.

I liked your definition, very congruent with strong leadership based masculinity. 

[Buck Edwards]

I really liked this article but it would be very tough to do for most men I guess, I don't know you tell me. The article is titled —

How To Be More Masculine and Manly in a Hyper Feminine World

https://www.knowledgeformen.com/how-to-be-more-masculine/

 

Edited October 5 by Buck Edwards

[NoSelfSelf]

2 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

I liked your definition, very congruent with strong leadership based masculinity. 

Man is always congruent,man doesnt change based on enviroment or what others want them to be.If you dont see the aligment of thinking and behaviour,you are not with a man but a wannabe.

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, NoSelfSelf said:

Man is always congruent,man doesnt change based on enviroment or what others want them to be.If you dont see the aligment of thinking and behaviour,you are not with a man but a wannabe.

true

[NoSelfSelf]

4 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

true

Refreshing to see you can spot a man withouth fighting it 👍

[bambi]

17 minutes ago, Nemra said:

What would it be called if someone got something from each side of the list? 🤔

A normal human lol!

[Nemra]

Just now, Buck Edwards said:

I think it is already the case, however I do believe that fundamental biological differences between male and female make us different. We're similar yet different. 

The problem is how we define and categorize what is feminine and masculine. Are they energy, behavior, etc.? Does male/female biology determine that we are going to be masculine/feminine?

[Buck Edwards]

14 minutes ago, Nemra said:

The problem is how we define and categorize what is feminine and masculine. Are they energy, behavior, etc.? Does male/female biology determine that we are going to be masculine/feminine?

This is a very good question. However. I don't have a definitive answer to this question. I think the answer to it will lie somewhere between abstract and concreteness. One can argue that gender is a myth and a product of social construct or one can say that there are definite biological differences. It's like one of those questions where we ask "is philosophy or religion really necessary in life?" or if "does IQ really measure intelligence?" 

Nothing is too fundamental and or absolute about this topic.

The notion of masculinity itself is very mushy and muddled with configurations, stereotypes and certain biological attributes, social dynamics across cultures have a played a fair role in shaping our ideas about masculinity. But I would like to know what men themselves think of it.

[bambi]

8 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

This is a very good question. However. I don't have a definitive answer to this question. I think the answer to it will lie somewhere between abstract and concreteness. One can argue that gender is a myth and a product of social construct or one can say that there are definite biological differences. It's like one of those questions where we ask "is philosophy or religion really necessary in life?" or if "does IQ really measure intelligence?" 

Nothing is too fundamental and or absolute about this topic.

The notion of masculinity itself is very mushy and muddled with configurations, stereotypes and certain biological attributes, social dynamics across cultures have a played a fair role in shaping our ideas about masculinity. But I would like to know what men themselves think of it.

This post is lacking clarity, Buck. The statement, "One can argue that gender is a myth and a product of social construct or one can say that there are definite biological differences," is illogical and doesn’t make sense. Can you see the false dichotomy here? Theres several other issues too

I don't mean to be rude, but would you like to rewrite it so it's more coherent?

[Buck Edwards]

5 minutes ago, bambi said:

This post is lacking clarity, Buck. The statement, "One can argue that gender is a myth and a product of social construct or one can say that there are definite biological differences," is illogical and doesn’t make sense. Can you see the false dichotomy here? Theres several other issues too

I don't mean to be rude, but would you like to rewrite it so it's more coherent?

Sure. I wanted to say that the argument can sway in both directions depending on what people think. Some people think that gender is a social construct. This is one camp. They believe that gender is a myth. Yet another camp believes that gender is not a myth and that there are definite differences between male and female rooted in biology. Personally I favor the second camp more. 

Edited October 5 by Buck Edwards

[bambi]

14 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Sure. I wanted to say that the argument can sway in both directions depending on what people think. Some people think that gender is a social construct. This is one camp. They believe that gender is a myth. Yet another camp believes that gender is not a myth and that there are definite differences between male and female rooted in biology. Personally I favor the second camp more. 

I appreciate your explanation, but there are still some important issues with the argument. First, you're conflating "gender" with "biological sex." Gender typically refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities, while biological sex is about physical characteristics like chromosomes and reproductive organs. The two are related, but they aren't the same.

Second, you're framing the argument as if there are only two camps: either gender is purely a social construct, or it's entirely based on biology. This creates a false dichotomy because many people—and much research—acknowledge that gender is influenced by both biology and social constructs in a complex and interconnected way. These perspectives don't have to be mutually exclusive.

It might help to reframe the argument to reflect this complexity and avoid oversimplifying the topic. Would you consider adjusting it to make that distinction clearer?

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, bambi said:

I appreciate your explanation, but there are still some important issues with the argument. First, you're conflating "gender" with "biological sex." Gender typically refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities, while biological sex is about physical characteristics like chromosomes and reproductive organs. The two are related, but they aren't the same.

Second, you're framing the argument as if there are only two camps: either gender is purely a social construct, or it's entirely based on biology. This creates a false dichotomy because many people—and much research—acknowledge that gender is influenced by both biology and social constructs in a complex and interconnected way. These perspectives don't have to be mutually exclusive.

It might help to reframe the argument to reflect this complexity and avoid oversimplifying the topic. Would you consider adjusting it to make that distinction clearer?

Yes. I completely agree with this. This is exactly how I wanted to frame it. Maybe I wasn't nuanced enough but you put it perfectly and clearly. 

[CARDOZZO]

 

[Buck Edwards]

@CARDOZZO ow wow. That's a great share. Thank you. 

[CARDOZZO]

33 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

@CARDOZZO ow wow. That's a great share. Thank you. 

[LifeEnjoyer]

- Grounded in his own reality.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

3 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

How much of this is True? 

By the way it's quite motivating even for a woman. 

How dare someone make a video with Leo and Tate in the same video, even when Leo specifically made a video about how Andrew Tate's man philosophy cannot work.