posted
"Countering with misbegotten ideas about what constitutes a real man won't help. Insulting everyone even more won't help. There are no issues of gender here. The real men on this board are those who speak with intelligence and respect, not braggadocio and swagger."
Just as a side note, tangent, sidebar, whatever I really hate when women say what a "real man" is. Can you imagine what would happen if a man said what a "Real woman" is? While I do think a real man speaks with intelligence and respect, I also think part of the male persona is the ability to be beligerent in defence of what he loves. There are times when braggadocio and swagger is part of the "real male" package. Just as something to think about, as to why I think saying what a "real man" constitutes is innapropriate behavior (especially from women), what would you think if I said a real woman isn't assertive or aggressive? Most of the women on this board would, rightly, kick my ass pretty hard. There's multiple layers of femininity and masculinity, and unless you address all those layers, you're doing a disservice... and, particularly because of the way the gender balance is right now, it really gets my goat when a woman says that a real man is "x" where "x" doesn't include many of the traditional male roles.
I hope thats more clear then I think it is.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Regarding my post, I was responding to this little gem by our friend the Bean Counter :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KoM you are the turd that half floats and half sinks to the bottom of a bowl while bubbling occasionally. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect is a line that travels two ways; I do not feel any particular obligation to be polite to this idiot. If I ever say anything of this sort to someone civilised, please feel free to rein me in right sharply. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hee Hee, I remember this one, I believe you started it too with some dismissive wave of the hand. Still crying? What a chump!
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to agree with raventh1, Your Majesty (King of Men).
While some of the people you regard idiots might in fact be so (in which case I am a moron), you really do achieve nothing more than your personal satisfaction.
Yes, I know, I'm young, I'm innocent and naive, and I had very little lfe experience - but that experience I had as an 8 year old. I know it gives you pleasure to rant about someone who speaks stupidly, and I know that it's even more self-reassuring when you take one of those bastards who pissed you off and slam him onto the ground, then kick him in all the soft spots, tread on him, tug him and stand on his hands.
But think again, is this REALLY what you want? The stomping, the thashing about, breaking down that bastard's spirit, and show the public you're a true man? Whether at school, the restaurant or the bar, is it really worth rampaging like a buffalo, destroying all that sways astray about your path? Is it really worth trying to annihilate the world with your rage? Ruining it all for your self-satisfaction and the purpose of showing the Universe that when you're pissed off, you are a vicious, vigorous, destructive, blood-hangry, carnivorous threat to all about you?
Overdone, but I was listening to some heavy rock... Think again, those people are truly not worth your going down to thir level. And words can work metaphorically, the same way. I know.
Jonny
P.S. Sorry for the harsh terminology, but:
A) It gives a better sense of the true feelings of a mad person.
B) If OSC can use the word 'bastard' and the phrase 'pissed off', surely so can I on his forum, when necessary.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jonathan Howard: Some bullies will not respond to anything other than that of a fatherly figure's firm rejection of what they are doing. The only time I have ever used such a tactic was when I tried everything else first. After this, things didn't immediately cool down, but they started on a downward trend.
There is always an exception to the rule.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comrade Howard, I do not believe I have called you an idiot anywhere, have I? If so, I apologise, for you are not, as far as I can tell.
But your argument does not hold water. Clearly, there are several ways to deal with the likes of BC : Flame right back, try to hold a rational discourse, or ignore totally. You suggest that I would gain more satisfaction from one of the latter two. Well, how do you know? I submit that you are not in a position to judge my emotional states.
As for achieving nothing but my own satisfaction - well, duh. This is a discussion forum, not a racetrack. Just what would you expect to achieve, here?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, Paul, you are completely right! Thank you for correcting me! I don't even pretend to know what a real woman is, much less a real man! I just know that hatrack has lots of both.
All I know is what it is NOT, so I'll rephrase my statement in the negative. "The real man is not the one who displays the most swagger and braggadocio." Is that still objectionable that way? Or should I retract that bit entirely, and leave it with "there are no issues of gender here"?
quote: I do not believe I have called you an idiot anywhere, have I?
You never called me an idiot, I did. I wasn't feeling any personal grievence either.
The most satisfying thing is obviously the rapid relief of rage, what I did to my father, for instance. Sure, it's a much better feeling as you type the flame, the insult, and the harsh wording; but it is, inevitably, the quick way downhill. Ignoring them, or harming them indirectly is possibly the most effective in the long run.
I used to beat people up and choke thm until their faces turned to the very pleasant shade of maroon. But it doesn't help! Those excrescences just come back again and again, unless you hit them the way they infer, comprehend, think (if applicable), self-pity, go mad and flee.
Of course, that is the very daunting skill of acquiring, the cool hatred. Not hot. Not viciously passionate; rather frigidly patient and logically being with the upper hand. Use your brains to find ways in which they lose, without lowering your level.
posted
You say your method is the most effective, but it is not clear to me what it is supposed to be effective at. To bend people to your will? What do I care what the BC does? Harming people? Over the Internet? That would be an extremely good trick, short of haxx0rizing th3ir b0xen, which I'm not 1337 enough to do.
I believe you are projecting your own emotions onto me. Truly, I could care less what BC or JH think, but flaming them is, in a way, an art form. As you say, satisfaction. I am not in the least angry, merely contemptuous.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana- Well, there are certainly instances where a real man displays braggadocia and swagger... example, facing down a intruder into his home?
I just think a real person can display lots of different attributes that we ascribe to "real men or women."
A real man can be thoughtful, intelligent, and respectful one moment... but also be an arrogant, swaggering jackass the next. I think the point is, to know when each characteristic of gender is appropriate, and let those attributes come out at times why they'll accomplish the most, and when those around us will appreciate each.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
another way of looking at JH's point is that "flaming back" encourages those folks, and more importantly (to me, and to Ic, I think, since he started this thread.) helps them "poison the well" for the rest of us.Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may be merely contemptuous. Fine by me.
All I'm saying, Your Highness (I should stop with this), is that things roll downhill. Now, I'm not suggesting you're unable to refrain yourself; on the contrary, you're probably severalthousand times better at refraining selfwards than me.
And yet, those flames can be annoying; if someone really gets you heated, and you know it - write a dismissive post. Or if it is really against the Hatrack ideology, get them banned. It works, I learned it the hard way.
Look all around, see where you have moved, then try to make sure you don't go astray, the clear way of solving things. I, sadly, forgot that very important thing when replying to my father. A mistake on my behalf. And I take full responsibility for that stupid move.
Jonny
[ December 19, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comrade Howard, you are forgetting something very important : BC is not my father. What do I care if we become unfriends?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah yes, Paul, I agree with you on all of the above.
So I still need to rephrase it. How about, "The men who impress me as real men emphasize intelligence and respect over swagger and braggadocio."
I'm not qualified to speak on the qualities of real men. I just wanted to say what I think real manhood not about. It's not about contempt for women and insults to women. Courage is not a gender specific trait.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Courage is not gender specific, true. Still, historically, it is men who have mostly been required to demonstrate physical courage. No-one has ever drafted women, to the best of my knowledge.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's just a little annoying to put "/her" and "/she" every time... Maybe Hebrew affected me again, damn.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about, "The men who impress me as real men emphasize intelligence and respect over swagger and braggadocio."
That's the one.
There is a time and a place for swagger and braggadocio. But to me, knowing when that is and restricting such behavior to such times is a higher quality of manhood than merely knowing how to behave that way.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul and Verily: Thanks! I would never want to give the impression that I was putting down men. I have enormous respect and admiration for men.
KoM: Physical courage is one of the qualities I admire in women in history as well as men. The Mormon pioneers, for instance, and Florence Nightengale and others like her who serve others in war zones. Women have fought many times throughout history, as well. Joan of Arc is just one example. In Israel, women are drafted to serve in the military. There are women fighter pilots now in the Air Force, and they are far from being "weak sisters" (to use Chuck Yeager's phrase for a less competent (male) fighter pilot). Examples of physical courage by both men and women are found throughout history.
There is also the type of courage required to keep slogging along at a hard or dirty job that really needs doing, with little recognition or pay or respect. Women display this quite often as well.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had forgotten about Israel. Nonetheless, women who fight wars are very much the exception, not the rule. Joan of Arc, fine; she was one woman, who led several thousand men. Not much balance there.
Please note, I am not saying women cannot be brave. I am saying that historically, few women have demonstrated their bravery.
As for the dirty jobs, that is not courage but endurance, hardihood, or stamina. I am talking about the ability to go into a situation where you know people want to kill you and are going to try their best to kill you, and still not run away.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about the freedom riders in the south in the civil rights era, or the young children, both boys and girls, who integrated the schools in Little Rock, Arkansas? Or Rosa Parks, Diana Nash, or any of the countless others who risked death by mobs to protest injustice?
How about Wangari Maathai who won the Nobel Peace prize this year for standing up to the former oppresive regime in Kenya? Or Shirin Ebadi who won in 2003 for fighting for the rights of women in the Muslim world?
Examples abound. They are not exceptions. Physical courage by both men and women is shown throughout history in every time and place where humans have lived.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And we should be accepting of them in this difficult time while they cling together and suffer the slings and arrows of cruel public opinion.
Speaking as a member of this community whom was first rejected and not until i allowed the entire board to scold me for my stupidity at prom was i excepted... I deserved everylast thing said on that thread and to be honest i believe you guys went too easy on me.
quote: Care enough to fight, care enough to rage, care enough to bust our humps every day for our loved ones, care enough to stand up and vote for our president and care enough to stand up for our faith.
Those who car enough to fight wqith rage don't care to win. Everyone who survives busts their hump on some level or another, And incse you haven't noticed what those threads that you were attacking people in were about, we do care about our politics and our faith.
quote: I could pretty easily go find a bunch of recent quotes from plenty of other Hatrackers, some of whom have been here for a long time, who have said equally bad or worse things.
I apoligize if I'm one of them.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about the five million soldiers who died in combat in the Great War, alone? How many of them were female? There are certainly brave women out there in history. But they are utterly outnumbered by the brave men.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, there's almost always a person or two like this around. BC and JarHead combined don't begin to rival Baldar when he was in a *good* mood.
And the early, angry David Bowles was able to bring intellect to bear in addition to venom, which made him a much more potent, destructive force than either of these two. It was difficult to ignore either Baldar or Bowles, because in additon to being really, really unplesant, they both brought something worthwhile to the community. I still wish Baldar could have shaped up and learned not to attack people--his perspective was an interesting one, when his frothing at the mouth didn't obscure it. And David Bowles, of course, learned how to function in the community and became a valued member for quite some time before quitting Hatrack and taking up residence at GreNME.
I am flabbergasted to see David Bowles labelled as "venemous" and mentioned in the same breath as Baldar. Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How about the five million soldiers who died in combat in the Great War, alone? How many of them were female? There are certainly brave women out there in history. But they are utterly outnumbered by the brave men.
Or, to put it another way, the number of women who had to show bravery in combat are outnumbered by the number of men who had to show bravery in combat.
Frankly, the whole childbirth thing has us playing catch-up.
posted
::notes that at least some of the "brave men" in wars were involuntary conscripts, whose only alternative to fighting was execution for desertion::
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you guys remember what David was like when he first started posting? He was incredibly venimous, by his own later admission. He developed into a highly valued member who contribued a lot to the forum, but he was positively toxic when he first started posting. I can remember once, early on, David cheered me on for the way I'd taken somebody's argument apart, and I was concerned, because his approval almost by definition meant that I'd been too harsh with the person I was addressing.
David has, on multiple occasions, referred to himself as someone who "didn't get" how to communicate successfully on Hatrack, and who had to learn how to operate here.
Don't get me wrong--I like and respect the guy quite a bit, and am glad that he can still be found at GreNME. He jut got off to a pretty rocky start here, is all.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you seem to be mistakenly defining bravery and courage as something that can only be shown by a soldier in war.
That's simply not the case.
By that definition, Ghandi was not brave, nor was Martin Luther King, Jr, nor was Amelia Earhardt, nor was Rosa Parks.
Just because wars have been fought predominantly by men does not mean bravery and courage are the sole province of that gender, or that bravery can only be come to only through armed conflict.
posted
Courage: That quality of mind which enables one to encounter danger and difficulties with firmness, or without fear, or fainting of heart; valor; boldness; resolution.Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: I am flabbergasted to see David Bowles labelled as "venemous" and mentioned in the same breath as Baldar. Did you read his early posts? He was pretty harsh in some of them.
Guess I don't remember them.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please note, I am not saying women cannot be brave. I am saying that historically, few women have demonstrated their bravery.
What about every woman in history who has had to send her husband, brother, or son off to war, not knowing if she'd ever see him again? I'd call that pretty damn brave.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, the novel "Gates of Fire," which was about the Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae, was (among other things) about the bravery of the women who were the ones who truly held the society together. First, they had to destroy any babies who were not perfect, then send their seven year-olds away, and then lose their sons and husbands and fathers to the wars.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I don't think I've ever read about a society that seems more alien to me than does that of Sparta.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liz, that book is one I have wanted to read but haven't really gotten a chance to...I think I will make time for it now that you have mentioned it.
I don't think that men or women are different in levels of bravery, but that they have different types of bravery. Men tend to be better equipt to deal with the physical types of bravery, because that is what we were conditioned towards from birth in our society....and in most societies it was the men who waged war and hunted, who dealt with intruders and security issues. Women have traditionally had a different type of courage, one that is harder to identify. It takes bravery to keep a family together when the man of the house (I am speaking in traditional terms here) was away, perhaps never to return, fighting a war. It takes bravery to face the difficulties of childbirth over and over again for the sake of having a family.
In todays word the roles are becoming intertwined more and more, and the types of bravery are not as clearly defined. It has always been possible to find women that excelled in battle, and men who lead in peace, but there are a lot more role models of both types of behaviors now than ever before. It is acceptable as never before for a man to become a nurse and care for others who need help, and women hold many important roles in the military and have shown bravery under fire.
Welcome to progress people.
As far as the venom....enough is enough. If you can't govern yourselves, then I am sure someone will do it for yourself.
Passion isn't a replacement for intellect, although both are necessary.
BTW, not every person in the military is an idiot. Some of the smartest people I have knows worked to the Army, as well as some of the most stupid.
posted
My opinion on this can be summed up with a rephrasing of a comment someone made on the evolution thread. If you're going to be debating strenuously with someone or someones, you have to already have a level of trust with them. If you're not even on the same level, it can seem like an attack. You don't have to be friends, but you should have a certain amount of respect.
That's why, Bean Counter and Jar Head, people are having such trouble with your posts here. Because this is not just a forum, it's also a community. I always thought of it as a dinner party where people speak in different groups and participate in different conversations. You two seem to be doing the equivalent of going from conversation to conversation telling everyone they're wrong and why they're wrong and then walking away. It's not surprising, then, that we're having such trouble getting along.
And don't give me some crap about bleeding hearts and how you don't have to like someone to debate with them or how Hatrack is soft or whatever. You have to respect someone to respect their opinions, whether you like them or not. And I for one am finding little to respect.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boudecia comes to mind. But sadly, she lost. She got crushed by the British I think.. or was it the Romans? Then you have various queens, ordinary people, all sorts of historically brave women through the ages...
But, really those two are difficult for me to ignore. It's like trying to ignore high pitched irratating sounds... It reminds me of being on CWFA. There were these two guys named Snot Nosed Punk and Billy Bob that would just say the most disgusting things about gay people, that would flame just for the sake of flaming. Those guys sort of remind me of them. Plus, what makes matters worse is that it seems like millions of people in this country think and talk the same way... It takes every bit of control I can muster not to flame back...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually left Hatrack for most of the recent semester because of the extremely politically abrasive feeling to a lot of the threads. I come here just to talk, not for more verbal combat and arguing. More bra size threads, less political ones. Not that I want to be ignorant but.... wait, yes I do. Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, there are a lot of responses, and I'm not going to quote them all. sndrake, your point about conscription is well taken, but the fact remains that many of those conscripts then behaved with extreme bravery in a war they might or might not have wanted to fight. Also, it was usually possible to get out of conscription if you absolutely couldn't face it; chop off your finger, run away to a distant country, etc.
Dag, childbirth isn't voluntary. For most of history, there's been no opting out of it. So courage doesn't really come into the matter.
Bravery in war is certainly not the only possible type, but I submit that it is the most common type, by several orders of magnitude. And again : Sure, Amelia Earhart was brave. I am not, and never have, argued that women cannot be brave. I am saying that for physical courage, there are many more male examples than female examples. So far, Boudicca, Earhart, and Jeanne d'Arc have been mentioned : All honour to them. I am going to mention Thomas Atkins, John Smith, and Frederick Schmidt, who all died in battle on the Somme. Which still leaves their comrades. Where are the further female examples?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, KoM, I don't think it is necessarily bravery that makes men fight wars most of the time. And there have ALWAYS been ways of opting out of childbirth if a woman didn't want to have children.
More children are raised than are killed, and every one of them had a mother, so soldiers courage is far more rare, and much less valuable, than a mothers courage, IMO.
By far more than a singe order of magnitude.
Not that I am belittling bravery on the field of battle, but I don't think that it is fair to prevent women from fighting in battle for most of our history and then say they are lees useful or brave because they don't fight as often.
posted
One of the techniques used to motivate largely unwilling armies is to maneuver them (under threat of death) into situations where they must succeed or die. Now, I'm not saying it's not bravery - I'd likely curl up into a little ball sucking my thumb - but it's not voluntary.
posted
Kwea : I disagree. Remaining celibate was just not going to happen to any large percentage of women at any point in history, and short of abortion and contraception, what other ways are there to avoid pregnancy? Now, it's true that not all soldiers are brave; still, most are. Consider a line of pikemen or musketeers, being charged by cavalry. If one man runs, the rest will run too, usually, and everyone will be slaughtered. Yet, time after time, such formations held their place.
Dag, that is just not right. True, humans fight better with their backs to the wall, but that is generally a very difficult position to achieve. Can you give any examples of this technique being used?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, that is just not right. True, humans fight better with their backs to the wall, but that is generally a very difficult position to achieve. Can you give any examples of this technique being used?
The clear examples are chaining the rowers to the Roman galleys.
In army situations, I'll need to look it up - I read about this in a book a long time ago. I know I own it; I don't remember which one.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
