5 ms·

If you are under attack, vulnerability is bad. Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. Because in many situations, it works. Despite the complaini

by lazide 11mo ago

If you are under attack, vulnerability is bad. Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. Because in many situations, it works. Despite the complaining. And being less ‘emotionally connected’ is valuable when people use that connection to exploit or hurt you. A very common experience for many men. That people (especially women) then complain you won’t open up to them is a riot in those situations because it’s like someone complaining you keep putting on your bullet proof vest - while they keep shooting at you. Historic male mental health issues also resulted. But notably, folks depending on the stoic persona for their own wellbeing would typically throw you under the bus for those issues too. “How dare you get mad! You’re a dangerous threat!” says the person constantly harassing the person, or the boss putting you in worse and worse work conditions while pretending they are doing you a favor, etc. They do that, of course, because mad people actually fight back. But if you need the job or are dependent on the relationship… As many men have experienced, the only way to ‘win’ is shut off caring about what people say on that front - among other emotions.

andersonpico 11mo ago
> (especially women) It's always about that isn't it? Not getting the reaction you want, vilifying your interlocutor, then run crying with fingers in your ears screaming "lalala I didn't want it anyway" and declaring yourself a stoic is really indicative of the type of people who in the present day call themselves stoics. This whole thread is just a long-winded version of redpill discourse, people who can see past minor adolescent romantic mishaps. How pathetic is it to still model your whole life after women while pretending to be an isle of self-reliance? Men really are lost.
- triceratops 11mo ago
  I didn't see any vilification of women. Women value sharing and emotional vulnerability. It's how they bond with other women, who make up the bulk of their friends. Men's experiences with other men, the bulk of their friends, often make them wary of being emotionally vulnerable. Hence, naturally, a disconnect when a man and a woman are establishing a relationship.
  - zozbot234 11mo ago
    Women value sharing and emotional vulnerability, but typically not from the males in their lives. There is a significant disconnect between average women and genuine male emotions, and males are expected to show emotional resilience and self-control first and foremost precisely to bridge that gap and then allow the 'sharing' to occur unimpeded, though still in a somewhat controlled way.
    - amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
      It's possible you are hanging around with the wrong women.
    - watwut 11mo ago
      Are men expected to do so? Male anger is more tolerated then female anger. Also, if you look at men who are popular or get far, they are super emotional - Trump, Musk, Tate heck even Vance and Hengensberg. Emotions driven males are cultural and political leaders literally now.
      - triceratops 11mo ago
        > Male anger is more tolerated then female anger That's only one emotion. What about all the rest?
        watwut 11mo ago
        In the context of "males are expected to show emotional resilience and self-control first" this is absolutely the primary thing that matters.
        lazide 11mo ago
        Only if not directed where society wants. Fighting a war? Absolutely. Defending your family? Absolutely. Getting in an argument with your spouse? Not at all.
      - 11mo ago
- dennis_jeeves2 11mo ago
  >> (especially women) >It's always about that isn't it? >How pathetic is it to still model your whole life after women while pretending to be an isle of self-reliance? Men really are lost. If I were to hazard a guess: he said it in the passing. You read into it a little too much.
  - lazide 11mo ago
    Frankly, a large portion of these replies feel like some pretty clear cut projection. It’s impressive.
    - dennis_jeeves2 11mo ago
      Yes, it's projection for sure. A large number of men appear to need validation from women. Pathetic. I guess from an evolutionary perspective it had to that way. Men who didn't need that validation worked themselves out of the gene pool.
      - lazide 11mo ago
        It depends on the degree. Completely ignoring what everyone thinks and doing your own thing is a good way to get in a very dangerous situation from a basic-life-needs perspective. And with women being a bit over half the population, saying ‘fuck it’ to what half the population wants, especially if you’re picking fights with them, is quite dangerous - even if they are not 100%. But you know who can handle dangerous, and doesn’t need validation from the population (in that form) to get what they want and have their needs met? The actual king. It’s a high risk, high reward (potentially) strategy. Better be good (and actually strong) if you want to not need to be liked. What I think we’ve been seeing play out is entire generations of men who learned that the best strategy was to be liked by women so the women would do all the work to support them. Which seems to have worked quite well for many of them for awhile. But now people are burning out, and the ‘easy wins’ from the prior approach (or just lifestyle creep/inflation!) is causing more real and visible difficulty - and the situation is indeed getting more difficult. We even have clear predators showing up and operating in the open, with no one stopping them. There needs to be more than just vibes and following the rules for things to work out now, and a different approach is needed. We’ll see what ends up shaking out, eh? One thing is clear though - if society won’t accept someone stepping up and punching someone in the face or worse (even if it is to protect them), you’ll eventually end up with a bunch of predators who will do whatever they want without fear taking advantage of society.
watwut 11mo ago
> Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. What are you talking about here. "Historic male persona" differs between periods and places, but anger, friendships and happiness are basically always parts of it. Odysseus "weeps" and "cries". The whole romantic era was about overly emotional, passionate and sensitive guys.
- marginalia_nu 11mo ago
  Homer predates the stoics by several centuries, so that makes sense. Though I do think Homer does make a solid case of traditional male ideals being fairly emotional, and this is something that persists to modern day. Achilles in particular spends half the Iliad sulking in his tent, and the other half making shish kebabs out of the Trojan army on a tireless revenge-rampage where he's so goddamn angry he picks a fight with a river. These types of characters are still written today, John Wick is something of a superficial parallel. Though it could be argued that Achilles lengthy sulking is diva behavior, few would argue Captain Kirk is effeminate because he's more emotionally driven than Spock, who in many ways turns the stoic ideals up to 11. Likely because despite occasionally chewing the scenery with emotional moments, he is still ultimately in control. (It's also worth noting that neither Achilles or Odysseus were likely intended as ideals, but rather tragic extremes, and Homer's works largely deal with the consequences of their personalities; the pride and rage of Achilles like we just discussed, the pathological distrust and constant scheming of Odysseus protracting his journey and being the true source of many of his countless obstacles)
  - lazide 11mo ago
    Even if it was written post-peak-stoic-era (it wasn’t), you still would probably not find many historic ‘stoic men’ as primary characters in a drama such as the Iliad. They would tend to be either scenery/setting, or somewhat uninteresting. for good reason. They are typically not very dramatic, and do the right thing - even in difficult circumstances. That is anti-drama. They are the ‘good dads’. The strong leaders who make sure the right things actually happen. Etc. They are not perfect, or superhuman. They can’t change the tide of a tsunami. But they do tend to make sure their family (and anyone who will listen to them without making their primary mission difficult!) also get to high ground at the right time. If society actually listens to them, society might even build a high enough sea wall that the Tsunami doesn’t even destroy the city. That one is rare, however.

by lazide 11mo ago

andersonpico 11mo ago

> (especially women) It's always about that isn't it? Not getting the reaction you want, vilifying your interlocutor, then run crying with fingers in your ears screaming "lalala I didn't want it anyway" and declaring yourself a stoic is really indicative of the type of people who in the present day call themselves stoics. This whole thread is just a long-winded version of redpill discourse, people who can see past minor adolescent romantic mishaps. How pathetic is it to still model your whole life after women while pretending to be an isle of self-reliance? Men really are lost.

triceratops 11mo ago
I didn't see any vilification of women. Women value sharing and emotional vulnerability. It's how they bond with other women, who make up the bulk of their friends. Men's experiences with other men, the bulk of their friends, often make them wary of being emotionally vulnerable. Hence, naturally, a disconnect when a man and a woman are establishing a relationship.
- zozbot234 11mo ago
  Women value sharing and emotional vulnerability, but typically not from the males in their lives. There is a significant disconnect between average women and genuine male emotions, and males are expected to show emotional resilience and self-control first and foremost precisely to bridge that gap and then allow the 'sharing' to occur unimpeded, though still in a somewhat controlled way.
  - amanaplanacanal 11mo ago
    It's possible you are hanging around with the wrong women.
  - watwut 11mo ago
    Are men expected to do so? Male anger is more tolerated then female anger. Also, if you look at men who are popular or get far, they are super emotional - Trump, Musk, Tate heck even Vance and Hengensberg. Emotions driven males are cultural and political leaders literally now.
    - triceratops 11mo ago
      > Male anger is more tolerated then female anger That's only one emotion. What about all the rest?
      - watwut 11mo ago
        In the context of "males are expected to show emotional resilience and self-control first" this is absolutely the primary thing that matters.
        lazide 11mo ago
        Only if not directed where society wants. Fighting a war? Absolutely. Defending your family? Absolutely. Getting in an argument with your spouse? Not at all.
    - 11mo ago
dennis_jeeves2 11mo ago
>> (especially women) >It's always about that isn't it? >How pathetic is it to still model your whole life after women while pretending to be an isle of self-reliance? Men really are lost. If I were to hazard a guess: he said it in the passing. You read into it a little too much.
- lazide 11mo ago
  Frankly, a large portion of these replies feel like some pretty clear cut projection. It’s impressive.
  - dennis_jeeves2 11mo ago
    Yes, it's projection for sure. A large number of men appear to need validation from women. Pathetic. I guess from an evolutionary perspective it had to that way. Men who didn't need that validation worked themselves out of the gene pool.
    - lazide 11mo ago
      It depends on the degree. Completely ignoring what everyone thinks and doing your own thing is a good way to get in a very dangerous situation from a basic-life-needs perspective. And with women being a bit over half the population, saying ‘fuck it’ to what half the population wants, especially if you’re picking fights with them, is quite dangerous - even if they are not 100%. But you know who can handle dangerous, and doesn’t need validation from the population (in that form) to get what they want and have their needs met? The actual king. It’s a high risk, high reward (potentially) strategy. Better be good (and actually strong) if you want to not need to be liked. What I think we’ve been seeing play out is entire generations of men who learned that the best strategy was to be liked by women so the women would do all the work to support them. Which seems to have worked quite well for many of them for awhile. But now people are burning out, and the ‘easy wins’ from the prior approach (or just lifestyle creep/inflation!) is causing more real and visible difficulty - and the situation is indeed getting more difficult. We even have clear predators showing up and operating in the open, with no one stopping them. There needs to be more than just vibes and following the rules for things to work out now, and a different approach is needed. We’ll see what ends up shaking out, eh? One thing is clear though - if society won’t accept someone stepping up and punching someone in the face or worse (even if it is to protect them), you’ll eventually end up with a bunch of predators who will do whatever they want without fear taking advantage of society.

watwut 11mo ago

> Historic ‘stoic male’ personas existed for a reason. What are you talking about here. "Historic male persona" differs between periods and places, but anger, friendships and happiness are basically always parts of it. Odysseus "weeps" and "cries". The whole romantic era was about overly emotional, passionate and sensitive guys.

marginalia_nu 11mo ago
Homer predates the stoics by several centuries, so that makes sense. Though I do think Homer does make a solid case of traditional male ideals being fairly emotional, and this is something that persists to modern day. Achilles in particular spends half the Iliad sulking in his tent, and the other half making shish kebabs out of the Trojan army on a tireless revenge-rampage where he's so goddamn angry he picks a fight with a river. These types of characters are still written today, John Wick is something of a superficial parallel. Though it could be argued that Achilles lengthy sulking is diva behavior, few would argue Captain Kirk is effeminate because he's more emotionally driven than Spock, who in many ways turns the stoic ideals up to 11. Likely because despite occasionally chewing the scenery with emotional moments, he is still ultimately in control. (It's also worth noting that neither Achilles or Odysseus were likely intended as ideals, but rather tragic extremes, and Homer's works largely deal with the consequences of their personalities; the pride and rage of Achilles like we just discussed, the pathological distrust and constant scheming of Odysseus protracting his journey and being the true source of many of his countless obstacles)
- lazide 11mo ago
  Even if it was written post-peak-stoic-era (it wasn’t), you still would probably not find many historic ‘stoic men’ as primary characters in a drama such as the Iliad. They would tend to be either scenery/setting, or somewhat uninteresting. for good reason. They are typically not very dramatic, and do the right thing - even in difficult circumstances. That is anti-drama. They are the ‘good dads’. The strong leaders who make sure the right things actually happen. Etc. They are not perfect, or superhuman. They can’t change the tide of a tsunami. But they do tend to make sure their family (and anyone who will listen to them without making their primary mission difficult!) also get to high ground at the right time. If society actually listens to them, society might even build a high enough sea wall that the Tsunami doesn’t even destroy the city. That one is rare, however.