In support of the rage of man

[bennyboy]

Packing up one's shit and moving to desolate location where one can be as primal a motherfucker as one wants to be is also an option for those who find the rules of civilized society too "unnatural" and cloying. 

How about "Rage Island?"  There can be only one!

[fredd bear]

Of course rage has a legitimate function .All human behave has, or at least did, once.

Perhaps originally linked to the 'fight' part or 'flight or fight', with the 'flight 'part being triggered by fear (?)

Today open rage is not acceptable in society, and can get you locked up; Eg road rage, shooting your next door neighbour because his cat crapped in your yard, that kind of thing.

Still very much accepted in combat soldiers.

Today we call it 'anger' and it is accepted under certain circumstances.Eg in professional sports, channeled anger is considered helpful .

The so-called 'alpha male' or the counterfeit of, such as in Donald Trump are essentially very angry and fearful people.

In my society, it is acceptable for a man to show anger, but not acceptable to show fear or sadness. So we show anger as our default negative emotion.

It is acceptable fo a woman to show fear or sadness, but not anger. Her default position is sadness/distress/getting 'upset .


Therapists have long been aware that few people are able to accurately identify their emotion at any given moment.

What I have just described is a model based on Transactional Analysis , with which I am pretty familiar. I make no truth claims. I will only say that it worked for me when I was the client. It also worked for me as a manager resolving interpersonal issues ..


T.A .Has been around for about 50 years. It is not a universally accepted theory of consciousness.

If you are interested, the wiki article linked will give a broad idea. IF you want a bit more detail ,I recommend 'I'M OK, YOU"RE OK' (Thomas Harris, 1969)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis

[I_am_not_mafia]

Western women are basically bored and delusional. They talk a big game, but they tend to hook up with the stronger aggressive types. And they really do expect those big strong guys to step in front of bullets for them. Hell, I don't even have a dick and I will step in front of bullets for women, just because that's what my mother taught me to do. Men are taught that their lives are worthless. And that message is repeated to them for their entire lives. When one woman is killed, it's a national tragedy. When a bunch of men are killed, so what? They're men. And men are pretty easy going about this. When they step in front of bullets, they just want to die knowing that their mothers would have been proud of them for being big, and strong, and brave.

So why is it such a great source of humor when men are raped in prison, but a crime against humanity when women are raped in prison?
Why is it no big deal when a man gets raped in prison, and then a crime against humanity when that same person gets raped after a sex change?
Why is my proudest memory from childhood the way that my mother doted over me and was so proud of me when I put myself between danger and my older sister? My father just nodded at me curtly. But my mother was so freaking proud. And don't get me wrong; I really loved her for that. It's hard to be a big, strong, brave man if your mother isn't proud of you.

What you are describing here is the patriarchy perceiving women in terms of their biology, there to accept sperm and to turn it into babies. This is unfair to both genders, men and women. Men are expected to protect the precious resources whilst a woman's value is seen in terms of her biology, not as a person.

This is why the right wing conservatives are fear mongering about trans-women being allowed into women only spaces yet don't give a shit that what they advocate would force trans-men to use them instead even though it would make cisgendered women far more uncomfortable. This is because they know that the trans-men aren't able to impregnate their harem whereas they don't want to risk a pre-op trans-women doing the same (despite the fact that HRT would make it impossible). Right-wing conservatives talk about trans-women as predators infiltrating women's toilets (bathrooms) or changing rooms (locker rooms), yet this never actually happens. What does happen though are the same Christian republican politicians sexually assaulting women in those very same spaces. These transphobic politicians are assuming that everyone else is thinking like them.

Misogyny objectifies women and keeps them in their place and you are embracing that and are now part of the problem. I don't know why. I can only assume because you are desperately trying to be accepted by the society you exist in. Yet if we treat both men and women first as people, and recognise that the toxic masculinity you are trying to adopt is harmful to both, then the world will slowly evolve to be a better place.

[Homeless Nutter]

Who gets to define illness?

 

Well, let's see... Whose job is it to define illnesses? Maybe they should keep doing it.

You?

No, but clearly you have some strong - unbiased, I'm sure - opinions on the matter, so let's go with your unsubstantiated self-serving assertions, why don't we...

Does some shrink coming up with a term for a trait actually make it a disease?

I don't know - does it? Is that how medicine works?

I'd say we have to look at the species as a whole.  There are so many men who have this particular "illness" that it's clearly an evolved trait.

By that logic herpes is an "evolved trait"... And what "particular illness" are you talking about? Tendency to lose one's sh*t in a fit of anger can very well be a symptom of a number of mental and physical conditions. People can become uncharacteristically aggressive and anti-social after receiving brain damage, for example, or due to diabetes, as well as variety of mental disorders, like the ones I mentioned and more.

 It's clearly not a trait that's well-adapted to civilized society, but that doesn't mean it's not normal and natural.

Cot death used to be "normal and natural"...

[fredd bear]

"Cot death used to be "normal and natural"..."

Perhaps natural, but never 'normal' to the families involved.

Now they call it 'sudden infant death syndrome'. Seems all they have worked out is there is more than one cause.

[Homeless Nutter]

Yeah, I don't think we can call something a mental illness when the whole society supports and rewards it. 

"Whole society supports and rewards it"? Lol... Then what on Earth is the OP moaning about?...

Our society often rewards dysfunctional, harmful and pathological behavior - often for the sake of nothing more than entertainment value. We reward rock-stars for abusing drugs and cutting themselves on stage. We reward pathological narcissists both in entertainment and in politics. Some societies support and reward suicidal tendencies.

It's an evolved trait, and we can see that culture rewards some of those and tries to suppress others (never perfectly).  

Yeah, sure. Maybe society rewards those, who can act in an aggressive manner in appropriate situations, as opposed to psychopaths and people with no self-control? It may be beneficial to appear crazy and unpredictable to your enemies under certain circumstances, but being actually crazy is not. And the trouble is - crazy people find it difficult to tell the difference between the two.

Aggression is one of those that people might condemn in the abstract, but easily find a way to justify when they want.

Yes, people are good at justifying stuff, that's convenient. Case in point: "I can't control my anti-social outbursts of emotions, but I don't need help - everybody else just needs to stop being such infuriating beta-cucks. When the end of civilization comes you're going to need people like me, because back in the days of hunting rabbits and gathering berries, blind, uncontrolled rage was our chief method of survival."

[bennyboy]

And what "particular illness" are you talking about? Tendency to lose one's sh*t in a fit of anger can very well be a symptom of a number of mental and physical conditions. People can become uncharacteristically aggressive and anti-social after receiving brain damage, for example, or due to diabetes, as well as variety of mental disorders, like the ones I mentioned and more.

Yeah, and it can also be a sign that a person is trapped in a social environment to which he is not well finished, and will be emotionally punished and demonized, causing him to enter a cycle of self-loathing that further aggravates the problem.

---

Misogyny objectifies women and keeps them in their place and you are embracing that and are now part of the problem. I don't know why. I can only assume because you are desperately trying to be accepted by the society you exist in. Yet if we treat both men and women first as people, and recognise that the toxic masculinity you are trying to adopt is harmful to both, then the world will slowly evolve to be a better place.

My opinion is that people in general are assholes. They learn the behavior from other assholes before them, and they have instincts which drive them to do assholish things on their own. And, in fact, even the positive virtues, like the love of a mother, very often flip to the other side of the coin and end up creating all kinds of trouble for us all.

I'm fine with saying that many men are toxic. But the idea of a patriarchy of asshole men victimizing poor, helpless, innocent women is a crock of shit. We're all in this together, and let's not pretend that isn't the case. You don't think that many powerful men have been driven by equally powerful and conniving wives?

[Belacqua]

Yes, people are good at justifying stuff, that's convenient. Case in point: "I can't control my anti-social outbursts of emotions, but I don't need help - everybody else just needs to stop being such infuriating beta-cucks. When the end of civilization comes you're going to need people like me, because back in the days of hunting rabbits and gathering berries, blind, uncontrolled rage was our chief method of survival."  

I've been told all that stuff. There was one guy on The [S]inking Atheist Forum who told me specifically that his brand of personal rage would save us all when some kind of unspecified crisis occurred. Too many apocalypse movies, maybe. 

What puzzles me is why so many Anglophones on sites like this one think that a discussion about metaphysics is something that they have to win, by personal attack if necessary. Disagreement I understand -- everybody disagrees. But there seems to be some kind of personal rage that requires them to go beyond that. What do they expect to win? 

I'm used to it now, it's no big deal. But to me those people seem insane.

[I_am_not_mafia]

But the idea of a patriarchy of asshole men victimizing poor, helpless, innocent women is a crock of shit.  We're all in this together, and let's not pretend that isn't the case.  You don't think that many powerful men have been driven by equally powerful and conniving wives?

Says a man who started a thread advocating that male rage should be considered socially acceptable.

[Amarok]

But the idea of a patriarchy of asshole men victimizing poor, helpless, innocent women is a crock of shit.  We're all in this together, and let's not pretend that isn't the case.  You don't think that many powerful men have been driven by equally powerful and conniving wives?

Says a man who started a thread advocating that male rage should be considered socially acceptable.

True