27
   

The Statue Wars Begin

 
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2017 03:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
What's so sinister about war memorials? Why should we read something sinister into them that isn't there? All countries have them.

Politics. * sigh * No wonder I'm depressed.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2017 03:27 pm
@wmwcjr,
Nothing Bill but then you probably don't agree with the concept of toxic masculinity.
wmwcjr
 
  4  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2017 07:14 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I regret that my reply is so long. Mr. Green

"Toxic masculinity," eh? Actually, I've come across that term many times. Especially at Good Men Project. The thought has just now occurred to me that "toxic femininity" has not been coined as its equivalent.

I’m not sure I know what it really means. Different people react differently to certain political slogans and labels. It helps to know why different people believe the way they do. That’s why, for example, in the United States, incredibly decent people are found in both of the major political parties as well as scoundrels and criminals.

From my own point of view, the term “toxic masculinity” has caught my attention because I’ve been concerned about the way boys and men are judged according to certain standards of masculinity that may or may not be valid. I get tired of those who incessantly label other guys as “alpha males” or “beta males.” In my opinion, their standards frequently are superficial.

I became aware of this issue when I was in my twenties. My sister and I were visiting a friend of hers when I noticed a paperback in her living room. My sister’s friend said she didn’t agree with the author’s views. The book was entitled The Feminized Male; and it was written by Patricia Cayo Sexton, a New York City sociology professor who was on the political left and considered herself to be a feminist. She spent considerable verbiage expressing a spiteful, bigoted view of quiet, studious boys who had no interest in sports and nonathetic guys in general whom she deemed to be effeminate. She demonized “feminized” males as a supposed threat to society. She claimed that the assassins of President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy were “feminized males” who had been enraged by the “virility” of the Kennedy brothers. She also blamed the riots in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic National Convention on “feminized males” (i.e., anti-Vietnam War demonstrators) who were enraged by the “virility” of the Chicago cops. Baloney, I say!

I am in debt to her for showing me how a black feels while looking at white supremacist literature and how a Jew feels while looking at antisemitic hate literature. Since I happened to be a guy who had never had an interest in sports, I deeply resented this woman who would personally attack me even though I was a complete stranger to her and would regard me as an inferior and ascribe negative traits to me on an incredibly superficial basis when, in fact, I was (and have been) traditionally masculine in many ways. (When I was a boy, I had no interest in sports or westerns; but I loved snakes and monsters. I still like horror stories. I’m working on a bodybuilding program as a guy in his sixties, but I’ll never have an interest in sports as a fan. It’s just my preference. No big deal.)

So, I’ve been interested in certain standards of masculinity such as the notion that all boys must participate in sports and the notion that boys and men should never cry. Not surprisingly, I was receptive to the notion of toxic masculinity on the basis of my own personal observations and experiences. But I now realize that this term may mean something that is entirely different from my own beliefs and attitudes.

I have sympathized with feminists on many (but not all) issues, but I do realize that some feminists are anti-male while some men are misogynists.

What is my own view of masculinity? I believe there are different paths to masculinity.

In just the last ten years, I’ve learned that men are an incredibly diverse group (which should surprise no one); in other words, stereotypes are shattered left and right. For example, there are rugged men who are pacifists. There are bodybuilders and Navy SEALs who don’t like sports. There are homosexual men who are in far better shape than most heterosexual men. There have been instances of bullied nonathletic boys who, instead of learning from their experiences to place a high premium on empathy, grew up to be monsters (such as Timothy McVeigh and Heinrich Himmler).

So, I guess I don’t know how “toxic masculinity” has been defined.

I also guess that I wrote too much and that I’ve made myself look silly. Oh, well. Mr. Green

roger
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2017 07:26 pm
@wmwcjr,
Nah. You wrote just enough.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2017 07:34 pm
@wmwcjr,
There is black and white, there is hot and cold and there is femininity and masculinity.

Within each of these archetypes, there is shading but it is absurd to argue one is better than the other or one is "toxic"

wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2017 09:51 pm
@roger,
Thank you, roger.
0 Replies
 
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Sep, 2017 10:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Indeed, I have never argued that one was better than the other or that one was "toxic." My sister has been a hero of mine because of her compassion and courage, but she never was a substitute for my stillborn brother. My relationship with him would have been different in some ways.

I had never construed that the term "toxic masculinity" was a putdown of boys and men. I had believed that reference was being made to certain behavioral patterns that are actually or supposedly harmful to them.

One of the reasons why I so strongly support traditional marriage (a position that is likely to result in my being condemned by well-meaning people) is because I realize that men and women (aside from the physical differences) are not the same, which is not to say that one is superior to the other. A child needs both a mother and a father. When one or the other is absent, the child does not receive the benefits of male/female dynamics on the part of his parents. It's bad enough when the relationship a child has with his father or mother has not been fully developed. Of course, some people would consider me to be a bigot for believing this, despite the fact that I've had a compassionate disposition since I was of a very young age. Of course, being a flawed human being, there have been times when I've failed in that regard.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2017 08:50 am
@wmwcjr,
I didn't accuse you of arguing anything.
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Sep, 2017 11:23 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I know that. There's no problem. Smile
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
oralloy
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 04:45 am
@cameronleon,
cameronleon wrote:
Very well.

According to "historians" who have revised the amount of deaths in Dresden, they officially have counted 25,000 dead.

The people who present these figures are reputable scholars, and their figures are backed by reliable data. It isn't fair to them to place the term historians in quotes as if there were something questionable about their standing.


cameronleon wrote:
This is interesting.

The population in Dresden before the attacks was 600,000 inhabitants.

The city was completely destroyed by the bombing which came without warning. The Allies improvised a new kind of bomb that was a destroyer burning and spreading particles everywhere. These bombs turned down buildings like crazy.

It's been awhile since I studied WWII conventional firebombing but I thought incendiaries like this were used in Hamburg and a few other cities earlier in the war.


cameronleon wrote:
But, historians -who knows who have paid them- say that from 600,000 people, with such a devastation, that only 25,000 people died and 35,000 were "missing".

They add that after a while, those 35,000 people who were "missing" they "appeared later on".

25,000 dead and 10,000 missing and later found. 35,000 was a total of the two figures.


cameronleon wrote:
I will tell to those "historians" to perform the same way of counting with the number of dead Jews in WW2 that have been claimed as 6'000,000.

So, using the same official method of counting, we can say. "hell with that number of 6'000,000" dead Jews in WW2.

Yes, hell with that counting because such is not the official method, and that exaggerate number has been reached just as an "estimate".

Such amount given by you of 6'000,000 dead Jews is simply unacceptable.

You must count the bodies, and come back and give us the number of dead Jews bodies you found after WW2.

You must count the dead bodies -go from cemetery to cemetery in Europe- and give as the number of deaths in WW2, and you must count 11'000,000.

No other amount is acceptable... count the dead bodies and come back.

More than three million names have already been counted:
http://www.ushmm.org/online/hsv/source_view.php?SourceId=32961

However, the number of dead can be reliably expanded beyond the number of counted names because documents from Nazi Germany recorded the number of people that they killed:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html
edgarblythe
 
  7  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 08:00 am
@cameronleon,
It's not "part of history." It's spite commemorations of racist hatred.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 08:08 am
Must maintain genetic purity so we can be as perfect as this specimen. Drunk
http://babylonbee.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/pure-768x435.png
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  7  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 08:18 am
@cameronleon,
cameronleon wrote:
In order to be officially counted as "dead", the requirement is the dead body. So, from 600,000 people after the total destruction of Dresden, the number of dead bodies is 25,000.

I like it.


Let's cut your attempt to turn this into a reductio ad absurdum argument using the holocaust short right here where the brainfart began.

You somehow seem to think that the 25,000 number is a body count, but it is an estimate from city officials at the time. The dramatically inflated number of 200,000 was ordered by the German government to be published by the press at the time and well with people like you using that propaganda generations later I can see why they might do that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  8  
Reply Sat 9 Sep, 2017 08:20 am
@cameronleon,
cameronleon wrote:
In order to be officially counted as "dead", the requirement is the dead body. So, from 600,000 people after the total destruction of Dresden, the number of dead bodies is 25,000.
To what "office" (> officially) are you referring?

Besides that, Dresden had 630,000 inhabitants in 1939.
Many think that the number was higher in 1944/45. (Refugees and deported are not included in these numbers.)
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
jespah
 
  10  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 05:39 am
@cameronleon,
cameronleon wrote:

...
Look, I repeat, any honorable war strategist will tell you the same, that it was ridiculous having Hitler killing detainees like crazy at the moment when the war was winning ground in favor of the Allies.

The acceptable explanation for the miserable condition of concentration camps far away from Berlin is the lack of food, medicines, and similar by fault of destroyed roads, destroyed storage places, destroyed Nazi resources caused by the daily bombing of the Allies.

It is evident that history must be rewritten, because the current version of this sad part of WW2 is a big lie....

Bullshit. The Nazis were killing people as fast as they could in the camps at the end of the war because they wanted to maximize the number of dead. Their aim was to murder Jews, Roma, and other folks. That was their goal and they did it with gusto. There are plenty of people who witnessed this.

Don't rewrite history for your personal anti-semitic agenda.
edgarblythe
 
  5  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 06:38 am
@jespah,
My sentiments exactly.
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 11 Sep, 2017 11:08 pm
@jespah,
Quote:
Bullshit. The Nazis were killing people as fast as they could in the camps at the end of the war because they wanted to maximize the number of dead. Their aim was to murder Jews, Roma, and other folks. That was their goal and they did it with gusto. There are plenty of people who witnessed this.

Don't rewrite history for your personal anti-semitic agenda.


Shalom,

Why having the Nazis grouping people, filling up trains, taking them to concentration camps, and killing them?

Why such a waste of war logistic?

If the intentions of the Nazis was to kill Jews and others, just shooting them where they were found was the easiest way, the practical way.

At that moment in the war, nobody was going to Germany to visit Hitler, no one was making films about how well Nazis treated the detainees, neither the arrest of detainees. The Nazis had all the opportunity of killing anyone, even their deserters in the middle of the streets and no one to impede them for doing so.

The fable of having Nazis collecting people from one place to send them to other locations for the sole purpose of killing them is laughable from the point of view of strategy of war.

Hitler might have been a very bad guy, but he wasn't an idiot to plan such a ridiculous strategy. If you call Hitler the worst enemy ever, then you are saying the right definition, but if you are calling him a "war criminal", then you are insulting him and he doesn't deserve such an insult because he never ordered such mass murdering.

Our new generations don't deserve receiving a twisted history of the WW2 events, just because the Allies decided to input crimes to Hitler, crimes that Hitler never committed.

In this matter, I won't marry to anyone but the truth, and the truth is that millions died because collateral damage, millions died by friendly fire, millions died because the Allies bombed Germany and Nazis conquered lands with thousands of airplanes 24/7 for more than 4 years.

Unless you prove that the bombs of the Allies were sent with such an excellent aim that killed German troops only... so your fable will be complete at last.





0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2017 05:38 am
My first experience with a Holocaust Denier.
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/12/2021 at 02:00:08