Insanity of the Left

[Cail]

However, aggressiveness isnt a useful social trait today. In fact aggressiveness is downright unhealthy. In Australia we still have issues with domestic violence and one woman each week is killed by their life partner. I find that an untenable scenario and indicative of a need to change how we treat one another.

What is a "social trait?" We're talking about individual traits. For an individual, aggressiveness can be an extremely helpful trait. Think about athletes, sport stars, salesmen, CEOs, etc. where being timid will put you at a disadvantage.

Anything can be taken to an extreme. No one is saying that domestic violence is good. (Plenty of women commit domestic violence, too, and our society tends to overlook it because guys are supposed to be tough--that's one unhealthy consequence of this type of thinking!!) However, there is nothing inherently wrong or unhealthy about aggression. It's all about context.

25% of domestic violence victims are men.

[Skyweir]

Again how is aggression useful?

In men or women? Yes men are victims of domestic violence .. here one woman is killed by their partner each week. Thats not killed with kisses or love .. its aggression.

Men arent victims of niceness when they experience physical violence at the hands of their abusive partners.

Its aggression..

My point to you Z is not to be "hateful" its simply to say I dont see an attack on maleness or even masculinity.

Aggression isnt beneficial in negotiations, in relationships, in a family dynamic or even in a workplace .. whether the party is a man or a woman.

Aggression isnt useful in law enforcement.. aggressive cops make the absolute worst cops. Ive worked with partners who entered volatile situations aggressively and simply escalated the problem. So no I dont buy that thinking at all.

It's not "aggression" that motivates an individual to seek a promotion, its self confidence and surety. Its not "aggression" that gets you a date. Again its confidence .. and lordy aggression aint gonna help at all.

Bravery isnt aggression. Ive been part of a sizeable deployment tasked with breaking up protesters who were hyped up on alcohol, a frenzied mob of several thousand, turning over vehicles, smashing shop windows, setting shit on fire _ I was one of about 80 strong .. and it was some scary shit .. it wasnt aggression I needed to be brave. It was the complete opposite. Ive attended lots of scary shit .. dangerous, high octane, fully fuelled, fucked up, terrifying shit. Shit that would make some piss their pants .. but aggression was never a reliable go to. Aggression isnt the pivotal "individual trait" you make it out to be.

Aggressive dudes are loose cannons, they fuck shit up. If I had to attend a siege situation, a shoot out, a rioting mob, Id not want aggression as a trait. I'd want confidence, steadiness, a level head, discipline, self control ..

Maybe I see the term slightly differently to you. But Ive worked with aggressive men and women and I can tell you, they bring zero value. Zero.

Sure I get that you feel that article attacks you as a man. Clearly you want to be pissed about what seems like an affront to your sense of masculinity. My guess is that aint actually what their end game is.

But sure .. be mortally offended. Dont try to take anything positive away with you. Or alternatively, consider that some "individual traits" arent healthy or positive ie aggression. And that "aggression" is not a trait thats useful in men or women.

And Z for your information, cos not sure how this is an unknown, but women do take dangerous jobs these days.

There are women today that hold as dangerous roles as men. In active duty, in law enforcement, working in mining, oil refineries, offshore rigs, factories.. you name it. Perhaps not in equal numbers but we are there.

[Zarathustra]

There are a few senses of "aggressive." Here's the one I was thinking about:

Aggressive: determined to win or succeed and using forceful action to win or to achieve success:

an aggressive election campaign
aggressive marketing tactics

Both players won their first-round matches in aggressive style.

As I said, context matters. There are some senses and contexts where aggression is not going to be useful. But that's not the same as saying there are NONE where it is useful.

I can't believe that readers of The Chronicles have to be told this. This was one of the main points, part of Covenant's and Mhoram's insights, that it is not emotions that are the problem, it's what you do with them. We shouldn't deny that we are humans who have traits like aggression, but instead we should channel these human traits into useful actions. Let emotion fuel your actions, while reason guides them. Control vs passion. Denying that aggression is part of our makeup is anti-human, life-denying, inauthentic bullshit.

Boy are aggressive. Instead of trying to turn them into women, or make them more passive, we should teach them to control their actions (not their emotions) through reason and human values.

Its not "aggression" that gets you a date. Again its confidence .. and lordy aggression aint gonna help at all.

You're honestly suggesting that there aren't any women who think an aggressive guy is sexy?? You'll have to explain the whole "bad boy" phenomenon, doms vs subs, the appeal of "rough sex," etc. I think that what women want in the bedroom is often 180 degrees out of sync with what they say they want out of men in society. And that should tell us something . . . our biology is telling us something that liberal professors seem to miss. Granted, I'm not saying that there is no place for gentleness in sex. But a meek, passive, weak, crying, feminine, risk-averse, emotional guy is going to find it harder to get laid than an aggressive one.

[Skyweir]

Totally agree with that assessment.

Interestingly I raised my boys to utilise communication skills not their fists.

However we were talking "aggression"

aggression
/a_gre_(a)n/Submit
noun
feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront.

"his chin was jutting with aggression"
synonyms: hostility, aggressiveness, belligerence, bellicosity, antagonism, truculence; More
the action of attacking without provocation.
plural noun: aggressions
"he called for an end to foreign aggression against his country"
forcefulness.
"the sheer volume and aggression of his playing"

Context does matter .. the term can indeed be nuanced to reflect the intensity of an election campaign, or a goal but that was not, how you used the term .. you cited "aggression".

Such a trait is rarely useful or effective in human interaction.

I cant believe Id have to make this clear either

[Cail]

Passivity will get you nowhere. If you're not aggressive in your career, you'll go nowhere and never make decent money. Winners are aggressive; if they weren't, they wouldn't win.

[Zarathustra]

Such a trait is rarely useful or effective in human interaction.

I cant believe Id have to make this clear either

You honestly think that in the history of mankind aggression hasn't led to positive outcomes? I would wager that the least aggressive societies were the ones who were overcome and/or enslaved. Colonization is an aggressive act. America is the result of colonization. America is the strongest and most successful civilization in human history.

I think you are confusing your own moral judgments about the way things should be vs the practical reality of how things are. Aggression--whether you are a lion or a human hunter--has endless useful applications. It may not benefit the person on the receiving end of the aggression, but that's irrelevant as to whether it benefits the aggressor.

Honestly, I think you're applying feminine criteria to this question. I think that liberalism itself is dominated by a feminist, victim-oriented mentality, that makes virtues out of weakness, whereas I have a viewpoint that is more dominant and values strength. That's why we're at odds. There is no objective standard here, just two viewpoints in conflict. As Nieztsche said, there are master moralities and there are slave moralities. I think that our society is succumbing to slave moralities, victimhood narratives that make virtues out of what I'd consider vices, and vices out of what I'd consider virtues.

[Skyweir]

Yeah its kinda telling that youd go there, no?

Of course I am seeing the article through a feminine lense, I am female.

Being aggressive in terms of being determined, is a value. I agreed with THAT assessment. And we arent discussing aggression in terms of history or nations or the countless combative incursions and wars. You criticised my talking about aggression in terms of social traits. You narrowed the field to "individual traits". And aggression really isnt useful.

You dont need aggression to be assertive, be determined, achieve your goals. You can do all these things with discipline, drive, high level communication skills and intelligence.

Noting that aggression is feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour

And THAT is I think what the authors of the article are simply stating. Anger, antipathy and violent behaviour dont result in positive outcomes.

I also think that society has placed untenable expectations on both men and women. Particularly men. Men according to Cail, and to a degree I concur, are held to a higher standard of accountability than women. Why? Are men superior to women? No, I would never agree that is the case. Then why? Because men have always had leadership expectations placed on them with regards to the family and society. Is it reasonable? Id say absolutely not.

I think people arent so much trying to attack men .. at least Im not .. I suspect the aim is to alleviate the burden of unreasonable expectations. As to the aggression thing .. to address it, aggression, its value, burden and costs.

[Rawedge Rim]

Yeah its kinda telling that youd go there, no?

Of course I am seeing the article through a feminine lense, I am female.

Being aggressive in terms of being determined, is a value. I agreed with THAT assessment. And we arent discussing aggression in terms of history or nations or the countless combative incursions and wars. You criticised my talking about aggression in terms of social traits. You narrowed the field to "individual traits". And aggression really isnt useful.

You dont need aggression to be assertive, be determined, achieve your goals. You can do all these things with discipline, drive, high level communication skills and intelligence.

Noting that aggression is feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour

And THAT is I think what the authors of the article are simply stating. Anger, antipathy and violent behaviour dont result in positive outcomes.

I also think that society has placed untenable expectations on both men and women. Particularly men. Men according to Cail, and to a degree I concur, are held to a higher standard of accountability than women. Why? Are men superior to women? No, I would never agree that is the case. Then why? Because men have always had leadership expectations placed on them with regards to the family and society. Is it reasonable? Id say absolutely not.

I think people arent so much trying to attack men .. at least Im not .. I suspect the aim is to alleviate the burden of unreasonable expectations. As to the aggression thing .. to address it, aggression, its value, burden and costs.

Lord Almighty. Things have changed somewhat in the last 100 years or so, compared to the last 1 million or so, and we expect evolution to keep up, or even for that matter that the current state of relative peace to continue, despite historical evidence to the contrary.

Pretty much throughout human history, and pre-history, it was male agression that that kept the wolf away from the door, (and I'll admit that many times the wolf was another male human). Regardless, at almost no time, including now, does danger happen, and the wife turn to the man and say "Honey, stay here with the kids, I'm going to go out and take care of this." or "Honey, I hear a noise outside, you stay in bed and I'll go investigate", or "Dang, we've had a blow out. Honey, stay in the car and I'll get out in the rain and change the tire".

What you need to be saying that anger, aggression, and even at need violent behavior need to be channeled productively.

https://www.psypost.org/2016/04/women-p ... eals-42308

https://www.livescience.com/1409-fertil ... y-men.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... id-concept



Not exactly definative, but does seem to bear out that many and most women prefer "manly" men.

[Gaius Octavius]

Not exactly definative, but does seem to bear out that many and most women prefer "manly" men.

So does that mean I still need to shave my balls or not?

[Skyweir]

Shave or not shave .. your call Nano

RR how funny you are. I have gotten up numerous times through my marriage to check on random noises, Id wager your wife has too. How do you think she manages when youre not at home.

Now yes my husband, if he wakes will follow me out to check on a noise or visa versa if he gets up Ill follow him out.

But

What does this prove? That aggression is a useful trait in cases of random noises in the night.

It is true that strong capable men are very attractive to most women ... but aggression, yeah not so much.

You can be strong and capable without being aggressive at all.

On the job Id far rather being partnered with a level headed human than a hot head aggressive human. They key element needed is control .. which is what is lacking if all you got is agro.

But I think youre right a better statement and focus is channeling that drive positively.

[Cail]

This is like a math conversation in which one party is using base-10, and the other is using a banana.

Arguing that aggression hasn't been the prime motivator (and savior) of the human race throughout history is nonsensical. To argue otherwise is as foolish as arguing that water isn't wet.

[Gaius Octavius]

This is like a math conversation in which one party is using base-10, and the other is using a banana.

This is so sexist. You're basically implying that women can't do math, so they're using a "banana" for you-know-what.

Sexist! Nazi! Woman-hater!

*goes back to sipping Soylent and eating Vegan food*

[Rawedge Rim]

This is like a math conversation in which one party is using base-10, and the other is using a banana.

This is so sexist. You're basically implying that women can't do math, so they're using a "banana" for you-know-what.

Sexist! Nazi! Woman-hater!

*goes back to sipping Soylent and eating Vegan food*

VEGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!! where's my torch and pitchfork

[Cail]

This is like a math conversation in which one party is using base-10, and the other is using a banana.

This is so sexist. You're basically implying that women can't do math, so they're using a "banana" for you-know-what.

Sexist! Nazi! Woman-hater!

*goes back to sipping Soylent and eating Vegan food*

VEGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!! where's my torch and pitchfork

Someone get that man a rare steak.

[Gaius Octavius]

Filet mignon, please. ^^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_RtHctpV1A

^This video is very relevant to the earlier discussion of masculinity and aggression.

[Skyweir]

Yes .. it touches on the self same report that Z originally commented on.

Historically you cant fault his logic .. as certain traits are survival instincts. What he fails to address is that the same pressures do not exist, in the same survivalist fashion.

So lets cut through some of the BS. Traditional Maxulinity equates with what is referred to in contemporary terms as Toxic Maculinity. True.

Toxic Masculinity is an attack on men and maleness. Agreed.

Men in his examples, refer to women in proprietary terms. As much as that is arguably natural, it may well be losing traction in the modern age. The Contemporary Male, is less driven by the need to pro create optimally.. ie knock out as many whipper snappers as possible to ensure the survival of his genetic legacy.

Indeed if that were the genetic imperative of biological determinism.. polyamory would be the dominant dynamic. As it is the most effective and efficient method of achieving that aim and drive.

But I contend that drive no longer decides how men today behave. It no longer requires men to fight competitors for the acquisition of female breeding partners.

Times have evolved and we have all evolved with it .. yet we still cling to primordial gender roles as though they were all that matters.

Men are men.. period. Not all men are ... manly, or possess the kind of primordial traits that are hailed by some commentators negatively today as traditional or toxic.

Masculinity is not a negative. It is as negative as femininity would be I suppose. But what constitutes masculinity and or femininity seems to be at issue.

As someone said earlier both masculinity and femininity are still attractive traits to both men re men, women re women and men re women and visa versa.

So positive.

But I think, and it is only my personal impression from reading other views here and watching Nanos video .. that its not a gender war or a war on gender roles even.

As in Nanos video, the dude makes a comment about .. the report identifying some traits that are harmful or detrimental to men. I am sure the same can be said for women .. I mean he noted the men dominate STEM roles and not many women ... well in Scandinavia anyway .. dont seek out such roles.

I have to assume that his facts are correct on that front, as I dont know the professional pursuits of Scandanavians by gender.

But its not an uncommon view really is it?

But what is the cause of that paradigm? Is it being raised with a particular gender bias re roles? Ill assume Scandinavia is a progressive society .. and one that encourages and supports women to seek higher educational goals. But traditional roles are nothing if not traditional

Meaning that even in the most advanced societies, traditions are slow to evolve and in particular, change.

So I am left looking at this video and your many indignant reactions to deemed attacks on masculinity .. and wonder if things like traditional gender roles will ever truly change

There will always be some study or some report that will look at societal issues, like domestic violence, the high female DV mortality rates world wide and try to unpack the many and varied causes and affecting variables.

Clearly less attention is given to male victims of domestic abuses and manipulation. Likely because the predominantnumbers of deaths are female, displacements are female, reporters of DV are female.

Male victims should be encouraged to report abuses, seek help and receive the support they need. Such an untenable dynamic might actually be represented in higher incidence of male suicide. But I digress

So its to my mind not abstract or even bizarre that certain traits would be identified as potentially toxic.. ie aggression, anger, violent behaviour. And such is also seen as unhealthy for men, given the nature of worst case scenarios.

[Cail]

Shifting gears.......

More proof they want to destroy the country and turn us into something we're not.

The Democrats Finally Won the Suburbs. Now Will They Destroy Them?

The Democratic Party's triumphal romp through suburbia was the big story of the midterms.

In 2016 the suburbs, home to the majority of American voters, voted 50 to 45 for Donald Trump; this year, 52 percent went Democratic. In affluent suburban districts once controlled by the GOP--outside Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Seattle, Kansas City and Philadelphia, and in Orange County, California--long-held GOP seats flipped and are unlikely to flip back unless Democrats alienate their new constituents by seeking to destroy suburban life.

The suburbs are where most Americans, including roughly four in five residents of our largest metropolitan areas, live. Historically, they have favored Republicans in most elections. But that tie has been weakened for reasons including the growing diversity of these areas and revulsion at Trump, particularly among educated women.

The trouble, however, is that progressives, for the most part, love density and disdain suburbs. They have recently espoused calls, for example, to ban single-family zoning altogether in deep blue Minneapolis--with the entire state of Oregon considering a ban of its own.

The assault on single-family homes grows, at least in part, out of the identity politics that now dominate progressive politics. From Roosevelt through Clinton, progressives had pushed programs and incentives that made it possible for more working- and middle-class people to purchase a home. "A nation of homeowners," President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed, "of people who own a real share in their land, is unconquerable." Homeownership, he saw, was critical, not only to the economy but to democracy and the very idea of self-government.

This focus began to shift under President Obama, whose HUD Secretary, Julian Castro, sought to socially reengineer suburbs deemed insufficiently diverse--even without any proof of discrimination. In California, San Francisco State Sen. Scott Wiener, backed by the tech oligarchs and operating on the notion that more high-rise projects would dramatically reduce car usership and lower real-estate prices, has sought to strip zoning authority from local jurisdictions that protect their existing single-family houses.

The Democrats' dilemma is how to reconcile the interest of largely married, middle-income suburban homeowners with their rock-solid activist base of city-dwellers, who tend to be renters and childless. Suburbanites, for example, tend to be less interested in public transportation than media people who live in New York City, and more interested in improving the roads they take to work.

To be sure, the pressure on these newly elected suburban Democrats to abandon their new constituents could be intense. Victoria Fierce, one of the leaders of the tech-funded YIMBY pro-density lobby in California, favors relentless densification because it promotes "collectivism"--thinking that also, incidentally, formed urban planning orthodoxy in the late, great Soviet Union. Lily Geismer, an associate professor of history at Claremont McKenna College, thinks suburbanites should be punished for their "hoarding" of everything from their children's education to the clear skies where big new developments should be erected.

Other progressives see single-family houses as inherently racist, an accusation that increasingly defines the political agenda of the modern left. They cite clear evidence that many communities had employed zoning to keep out African-Americans, Latinos and, in some places, Jews. Yet such policies have been illegal for decades.

If single-family homes are inherently racist, then so are many minorities. Since 2000, the vast majority of African-American, Latino and Asian growth has been in suburban and exurban areas, while core cities, like Chicago, have seen significant black flight to the suburbs.

The Coalition to Kill the American Dream

The progressive dream centers on a vision of a dense, egalitarian urban core. Yet in terms of inequality, dense core cities--notably New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco--are generally far less equal than lower density areas. As for what place attracts families, it's not even remotely close: People living in suburbs and exurbs are far more likely to have children in their household. The 8 percent of core residents with children aged 6 to 17 is barely a third of the percentage in suburbs and exurbs.

This may be critical for the political future as millennials, born between 1980 and 1999, reach their peak child-bearing years, and continue moving to the suburbs in huge numbers. While most media and academic thinkpieces focus on the glory of density and planning, over 80 percent of all purchases in 2018 by people under 37 are of single-family homes. San Francisco or downtown Los Angeles do not attract anything like the numbers of millennials as places like the much disdained Inland Empire, located in suburban and exurban San Bernardino and Riverside countries and now the fastest-growing U.S. metro area for new millennial residents, according to data from RCLCO, a real estate analytics company.

So, who is against the idea that millennials, minorities and immigrants should get a crack at the American dream? If it were just addled planners and gentry environmentalists like Michael Bloomberg or Tom Steyer, Republicans could identify with a middle-class resistance. But the new residential feudalism--where only a few can afford property and most remain lifetime rent serfs--also enjoys wide support from the monied on Wall Street, where investors embrace the notion of "the rentership society." Groups favoring forced densification, notes The Nation and Dissent writer Zelda Bronstein, like to portray themselves as grassroots but often get much of. their funding from real estate interests and tech oligarchs.

Forced density advocates have also won over intellectual allies on the right, mainly from libertarian "free market" conservative foundations such as Cato, Mercatus and Heritage. These groups, notes long-time urban planning critic Randall O'Toole, have persuaded themselves that deregulating urban space will help lower prices, even when done in conjunction with shutting down suburban growth.

The reality is far different. In virtually every market where density is promoted and suburban growth constrained, prices tend to rise far faster than in less regulated markets. Density and urban growth can still be developed in many cities: South Dallas has more open land than the entirety of Manhattan. Taking advantage of open land for diverse kinds of housing does not devastate existing, stable middle- and working-class communities . Fear of displacement by development may be the biggest reason why San Francisco Sen. Wiener's oligarch-backed densification efforts met such strong opposition even in Berkeley, heavily-minority South Los Angeles and East L.A.

Is there a suburban politics?

Whatever party figures out how to appeal to suburban voters will own the political future. To be sure, millennial suburbanites may be for attracted to the greater diversity in some suburbs, and to those with existing or created walkable "town centers." But they also want tree-lined streets, backyards and single-family homes. Since 2010, some 80 percent of millennial growth has been in suburbs and exurbs--which is where most millennials have said they'd prefer to live in survey after survey.

No one moves to the suburbs to recreate the congestion, high prices and often political dysfunction of the urban cores. Schools are a critical factor: suburbs are. far more family-centric, which leads to a focus not on ideology but economic issues such as health care, education, and public safety.

However much they might detest Trump , suburbanites are not likely to rally long-term to a party that seeks to wipe out their way of life. The assault on suburbia, both from the ultra-capitalist right and socialist-minded left, neglects the very reasons--space and privacy--people of all ethnicities move to suburbia. Just as Republicans can ignore the unintended consequences of ultra-free market policies, Democrats ignore the aspirations of their own voters.

More important still, the anti-single-family campaign undermines the foundation of our democracy. The essence of American civilization has been the pursuit of a better life for oneself and one's family. Take away the ability to own one's home and we are well on our road to a neo-feudal society where the masses will need to rely on the state not only for housing but, without meaningful assets, to finance their retirement.

The clamor to restrict single-family homes and thus push the American dream further out of many Americans' reach, represents an assault on what both parties once espoused. An America without widespread homeownership is no longer an aspirational country, but a place where people remain imprisoned by their class and unable to pursue what they perceive as a better quality of life.

[Skyweir]

Well that was a romp through the authors personal suppositions on the Democrats "triumphant" claim on those suburbs.,

Thats 5 mins of uninformative drivel Ill never get back.

Loaded with assumptions that such representatives have neither a clue, or interest in those specific suburban constituents.

Nothing you wouldnt expect to hear from a naysayer.

The proof of the pudding is in its eating ... so when they .. actually fuck up and literally do something .. then go for it .. criticise factual ball drops.

[Cail]

Seeing as you have zero experience living in the American suburbs or voting in American elections, you might want to be a bit careful in using the word "drivel". Your opinion is less than worthless when it comes to this subject.

[Zarathustra]

Noting that aggression is feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour

And THAT is I think what the authors of the article are simply stating. Anger, antipathy and violent behaviour dont result in positive outcomes.

Do you honestly believe that "traditional masculinity" is defined in terms of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behavior? Where did I miss this training in my journey to become a man? This is the problem: the psychologists are defining all men in terms of a tiny fraction of those who are actually violent. It is not tradition that men are violent assholes. This is fiction and caricature. It is an attack upon masculinity, and it's happening all throughout our culture.

It's a sexist stereotype.

If I'd said that "traditional femininity" is characterized by passivity and a tendency toward crying, emotional outbursts, excessive shopping, and an inability to change tires, you'd have every reason to be as offended as I am now. Sexist stereotypes are offensive and stupid. But it's okay as long as the target is men.

So lets cut through some of the BS. Traditional Maxulinity equates with what is referred to in contemporary terms as Toxic Maculinity. True.

False. You are stereotyping men. You are engaging in sexism.

Men in his examples, refer to women in proprietary terms.

No, I didn't give any examples where men refer to women in proprietary terms.

So its to my mind not abstract or even bizarre that certain traits would be identified as potentially toxic.. ie aggression, anger, violent behaviour. And such is also seen as unhealthy for men, given the nature of worst case scenarios.

I agree that certain traits like anger and violent behavior can be identified as toxic, but I disagree that these traits define "traditional masculinity."