No they don't, but they remember the context and add [physically] to it - meaning with a lifetime of testosterone, he developed as a man and should have disclosed that before fighting women.
Since you continue to ignore the context of Joe's analysis, you come across as a crazy SJW. You're not helping anybody by perpetuating falsehoods.
> claiming aggression is part of the "masculine psyche".
Aggression is highly linked to testosterone. Saying aggression is part of the masculine psyche is not some spurious claim, it is basic fact. And of course you left out "ambition".
> Seriously, w. t. f.
> my identity is [not] tied up in aggression
Huh. Maybe a bit of self-reflection might be called for?
(If it's not clear, your reactions sounds quite aggressive to me ¯\_(?)_/¯ )
Anyway, aggression is not a bad thing per-se. In fact, most of what we call modern society was built upon channeling and harnessing that energy as ambition and in competitive endeavors.
> It’s that there are a small amount of men in the modern world who need a warrior ethos and the ‘tempering fires of warfare’ and other such cringe imagery employed by those pushing hypermasculine ideology.
No one is pushing that, other than those that push that as a strawman.
> The majority of men don’t need to be ‘redeemed through violence’
You are so far off the mark that you're crossing over into speculative fiction at this point.
Ever heard of testosterone? Do you know what the effects are?
Okay, sure, it doesn't result in a bloodlust, but it is largely responsible for active aggression. As a society we channel this aggression into sports where it can be safely bled with limited violence.
>Yes, women are vicious fighters but use different, and arguably more potent, weapons. A fist-fight with a man might leave you wounded and bleeding for a few days.
I cannot agree with this. Bodily harm was far far worse than being picked on.
You use an extreme case for the women, but a near harmless case for a man? What if you get your skull smashed in and have a brain injury forever? (I saw that happen). What if your face gets smashed and plastic surgery can't fix it?(seen that one too) Not to mention becoming a paraplegic. (or death)
I'll take a chance at ostracization over being afraid for my life.
>Being consistent with terminology is sadly underrated.
These are extremely complicated topics, and I doubt if there are two people in the world that understand them exactly in the same way.
I understand the desire to have a dependable way to talk about them, but it just doesn't exist. The only way to make progress with other people when talking about these issues is to listen and ask questions - not to depend on the fact that you know some dictionary definition of a word.
And really, that's not limited to these topics, but is basically true of all communication.
I know that there good explanations for saying that there is a difference between 'misandry' and 'toxic masculinity', and focusing on trying to force a certain terminology would completely miss the actual point of the discussion.
> From what I gather the big thing is that he's basically very misogynistic.
> And I've seen very little that can disclaim that.
Hang on, no. It's those that claim that someone is misogynistic (let alone very misogynistic) that has the burden of showing that the accused has hatred or prejudice against women, not on others to disclaim it.
If, to that, we add the absolute vilification against anyone trying to defend the accuse, then the allegations can't be evaluated properly in such an environment and deserve nothing but dismissal.
> But perhaps I can summarize my viewpoint so you can understand why I’m such a misogynist asshole douche bag. Here’s my view in brief:
> You can’t expect to have a rational discussion on any topic that has an emotional charge. Emotion pushes out reason. That is true for all humans, including children, men, women, and people in every range of mental ability. The path of least resistance is to walk away from that sort of fight. Men generally prefer the path of least resistance. The exception is when men irrationally debate with other men. That’s a type of sport. No one expects opinions to be changed as a result.
> “ Now that you've made up your mind, anything to the contrary is a conspiracy.”
This is an absurd response. Just look at the article - it is emphatically not a retraction or apology. You can’t just claim I’ve become close-minded and therefore dismiss anything else that’s said. That’s just your own close-mindedness.
> “ He starts by saying it's wrong to hit women. He knows it's wrong. What he's saying is if a woman doesn't know when to shut up, they could get themselves slapped and it wasn't beneath him either. He's justifying physical retaliation to verbal abuse.“
This is not what he said at all. This is an attempt by you to whitewash it and cover it with things that are exposing your own misogyny. Framing any behavior Connery ascribed to these hypothetical women that could “cause” him to slap them as “abuse” perpetrated by the women is directly misogynistic by you!
I shudder that I even have to point this out to you - that your own comments here are pretty morally contemptible but you very blindly and very wrongly appear to think you’re representing some sort of higher plane of discourse where you don’t reduce people to binary good or bad characterizations.
> “ Today it's still okay by most for a woman to hit a man. Tomorrow will men get the justice they deserve? Also my 2yo hits me and I have video evidence. Should I hold on to it?”
What point do you think you’re making here? This is borderline incoherent? Are you claiming a two year old hitting you is somehow the same as a world famous movie star going on national TV and saying he thinks it’s ok to slap women? Because there’s no other rhetorical flair to your comment that could make any sense.
> “ If someone needs help, let's help them. Public shaming helps no one.”
This sounds like a true defender of abusers. You sincerely ought to be ashamed of yourself for the position you’re describing.
> sexist remarks are also very indicative of where his head was at the time. he was not focused on the task in front of him.
My point, which I will repeat again, is that you should not judge "where his head was at the time" based on a handful of quotes cherry picked from 32 minutes.
> please stop seeing things like this as virtue signaling
Please stop seeing things as reinforcing whatever prejudices you walked into this with.
> In my opinion, ignoring hurtful behavior because we believe the intent wasn't meant to be hurtful will only encourage these behaviors in the long run.
OTOH, maybe you should man the fuck up and move on with your life. I know that seems blunt and assholeish, but that's sort of the point.
I've been offended plenty of times and talked myself down because I knew ultimately it was my emotions misinterpreting the intent.
There is nothing that says just offense can't be mistaken.
edit: watch someone call the phrase 'man the fuck up' sexist.
> Attacking people on these two points will be an attack that is almost exclusively on women, and society doesn't tolerate that.
Given the prevalence of sexual violence in our society and the difficulty of getting an appropriate response, I find this statement incredibly ironic. (Out of context, I admit, but it's hard to reconcile the two views.)
#MeToo is one source of evidence that society absolutely tolerates attacks on women.
[1] No citations - live your own life, do your own reading, make your own conclusions.
> The American Zeitgeist around gender issues is distorted to dehumanize men and alienate anyone who even dares to recognize this fact.
I must be living under a rock then — this Zeitgeist you talk of is alien to me. I am a male who does not feel in any way dehumanized, nor have any of my male friends expressed as much.
The missing context is that many women he worked with defended him. That he has consistently worked with, hired, supported, and promoted women throughout his career. That he has done far more to benefit women in science and humanity generally than the whining Twitterati who denounced him ever will.
> What group of assholes believes that? It's sexist bullshit.
Yet fairly typical in modern Western society. I can’t count the number of times people have open insulted and/or discounted “males” and particularly “white males” in my presence. “Oh, but you’re different”. I have no idea how to even respond to that.
I can’t even imagine people doing the same to women or minority males 25 years ago without (justifiably) being excluded from polite society (it was happening to gay people back then, and I’m very glad those days are pretty much over, or at least much better).
No they don't, but they remember the context and add [physically] to it - meaning with a lifetime of testosterone, he developed as a man and should have disclosed that before fighting women.
Since you continue to ignore the context of Joe's analysis, you come across as a crazy SJW. You're not helping anybody by perpetuating falsehoods.
reply