They want to eat meat

[silverscreenselect]

SSS, you do realize you are posting articles that are contradictory to each other and using them as some sort of support for your worldview of men.

I'm not sure exactly how these articles are contradictory. They both show the correlation between wanting to "prove" masuclinity and the use of guns to do so.

And I'd say some of your justifications for your own ownership of guns amply demonstrate that as well.

[BackInTex]

Intersting how SSS thinks it better to directly give food to the hungry (in Africa specifically but probably anywhere) rather than support some sort of economy whereby they can support themselves. Reading through this thread it is quite obvious that in his perfect world the hungry are just fed, not trained to do anything for themselves or provide services for others who would compensate them for those services. That is too inefficient. They should just be fed. Plain and simple.

I think most of us intelligent folk realize that is not a sustainable economic model.

[BackInTex]

And I'd say some of your justifications for your own ownership of guns amply demonstrate that as well.

How so? When someone eats is it because they are trying to "prove" they are hungry, or is it because they are hungry?

Because someone does something masculine (or something typically regarded as such) why do you and other feminists insist it is to "prove" masculinity? The truth is likely the same as why people eat, because they are hungry. Men do manly things because they enjoy doing them. They enjoy doing them because they are men. I'm sorry that upsets you because you do not enjoy manly things. Perhaps you suffer from low-T.

[silverscreenselect]

Men do manly things because they enjoy doing them.

And why are certain things "manly"? Well, in the case of guns, it's because having them (and in some cases using them) gives men a sense of being in control which is important to them. And in a lot of cases those feelings have been exacerbated by our society's marketing and indoctrination (like the Bushmaster "man card" campaign).

It's ironic that conservatives decry a lack of family values and a failure of young men to assume responsibility for spouses and offspring. However, their own fascination with guns stems from the very same cultural influences that lead to the breakdown of (largely) minority families.

[BackInTex]

Men do manly things because they enjoy doing them.

And why are certain things "manly"? Well, in the case of guns, it's because having them (and in some cases using them) gives men a sense of being in control which is important to them. And in a lot of cases those feelings have been exacerbated by our society's marketing and indoctrination (like the Bushmaster "man card" campaign).

I've never heard of the Bushmaster "man card" campaign. I have seen the "man card" phrase used in other commercials though. But I do not equate humor in marketing to indoctrination. Indoctrination would be more like what is happening in our schools with regards to calling every single thing "bullying" or trying to make girls compete with boys or trying to prevent boys from behaving like boys or suspending 5-year ol kids for drawing a gun on a napkin.

Certain things are manly because they are identified as something most men do and most women don't. Sort of profiling behaviors. Like I said, men and women or different.

It's ironic that conservatives decry a lack of family values and a failure of young men to assume responsibility for spouses and offspring. However, their own fascination with guns stems from the very same cultural influences that lead to the breakdown of (largely) minority families.

You've impressed me with your wrongness. I didn't think you could out do some of the things you've said in the past, but you've done it here. Congrats.

Fascination, your term but I'll stick with it, with guns is not a conservative or liberal attribute. But let's pretend it is. What cultural influences are your talking about? What has led to the breakdown of minority families (as a group compared to non-minority families), in your mind?

[silverscreenselect]

I've never heard of the Bushmaster "man card" campaign.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/bushmaste ... ign#b8kmrn

[silverscreenselect]

Certain things are manly because they are identified as something most men do and most women don't. Sort of profiling behaviors. Like I said, men and women or different.

That's like saying that certain things are stylish are cool because they are identified as being something stylish or cool people do and most unstylish or uncool people don't. These attitudes aren't inborn. They are learned and reinforced by what we see and experience in our society every day. At one time, being manly was equated to being educated, refined, and civilized as opposed to being brutish and crude.

From one of the articles I posted:

Gail Bederman in Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917 deftly analyzes the changing concept of what it meant to be a man at the turn of the twentieth century. She argues modernity led to this shift. For most of the nineteenth century, society idealized a refined, educated, thin, self-restrained, moral, spiritual, and emotional man. “Civilized” men did not retaliate for supposed wrongs since that meant the man lacked the critical characteristic of self-restraint. Class and race obviously played into the perfect standard too. Still, Victorians placed value in feelings, etiquette, and intelligence. But by the late 1800s, urbanization, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, and women’s claim to the “public sphere” with “mixed sex fun” and the women’s suffrage movement altered the understanding of manhood.In the wake of such change, a more physical male ideal took root. The “cult of the strenuous life” emerged in which athleticism, all male clubs, Boy Scouts, boxing, and college sports dominated. These activities reinforced the new masculinity and set new expectations.

Everything you equate to being "manly" has developed as a result of cultural influences over the last hundred years or so, just as what people equate to being stylish has changed over the years. In some cultures, male homosexuality has been considered the manliest of behavior for the simple reason that it's one activity that women absolutely cannot engage in. In much of modern Western society it's not.

[BackInTex]

Certain things are manly because they are identified as something most men do and most women don't. Sort of profiling behaviors. Like I said, men and women or different.

That's like saying that certain things are stylish are cool because they are identified as being something stylish or cool people do and most unstylish or uncool people don't.

Not exactly. Who is cool or stylish is subjective, open to debate, and can, as you've indicated, change over time. Who is a man (genetically) is objective and fixed over time.

These attitudes aren't inborn. They are learned and reinforced by what we see and experience in our society every day. At one time, being manly was equated to being educated, refined, and civilized as opposed to being brutish and crude.

Many traits are inborn. Studies show boys are more likely to be aggressive and their play more likely to involve mock fighting. Men are naturally protective and women nurturing. Not that each doesn't have some of each other's attributes and not that there aren't outliers where one is very different than the norm. But as a whole men are men and women are women.

From one of the articles I posted:

Gail Bederman in Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880-1917 deftly analyzes the changing concept of what it meant to be a man at the turn of the twentieth century. She argues modernity led to this shift. For most of the nineteenth century, society idealized a refined, educated, thin, self-restrained, moral, spiritual, and emotional man. “Civilized” men did not retaliate for supposed wrongs since that meant the man lacked the critical characteristic of self-restraint. Class and race obviously played into the perfect standard too. Still, Victorians placed value in feelings, etiquette, and intelligence. But by the late 1800s, urbanization, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, and women’s claim to the “public sphere” with “mixed sex fun” and the women’s suffrage movement altered the understanding of manhood.In the wake of such change, a more physical male ideal took root. The “cult of the strenuous life” emerged in which athleticism, all male clubs, Boy Scouts, boxing, and college sports dominated. These activities reinforced the new masculinity and set new expectations.

Everything you equate to being "manly" has developed as a result of cultural influences over the last hundred years or so, just as what people equate to being stylish has changed over the years. In some cultures, male homosexuality has been considered the manliest of behavior for the simple reason that it's one activity that women absolutely cannot engage in. In much of modern Western society it's not.

Gail Bederman, female professor at Notre Dame, and faculty sponsor/participant in the Queer Film Festival. Think she has an agenda? Intellectual snobbery to discount traditional sexual roles because it doesn't fit her.

[mrkelley23]

You two are so cute. If this was a Hollywood movie, I know exactly what would come next.

[BackInTex]

You two are so cute. If this was a Hollywood movie, I know exactly what would come next.

I'm Oscar to his Felix.

[littlebeast13]

You two are so cute. If this was a Hollywood movie, I know exactly what would come next.

I thought the promo guy already did Brokebored Mountain...

lb13

[silverscreenselect]

Studies show boys are more likely to be aggressive and their play more likely to involve mock fighting. Men are naturally protective and women nurturing. Not that each doesn't have some of each other's attributes and not that there aren't outliers where one is very different than the norm.

And that's another myth. To the extent that boys (or men) are more aggressive, it's because society accepts or expects that type of behavior. Boys are programmed from an early age about what is "masculine" and learn to conform to that behavior (the same is true with girls).

http://www.apa.org/research/action/difference.aspx

Key quote:

Furthermore, Hyde found that gender differences seem to depend on the context in which they were measured. In studies designed to eliminate gender norms, researchers demonstrated that gender roles and social context strongly determined a person's actions. For example, after participants in one experiment were told that they would not be identified as male or female, nor did they wear any identification, none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given the chance to be aggressive. In fact, they did the opposite of what would be expected - women were more aggressive and men were more passive.

[Spock]

In a way, I am laughing about this-never once does it dawn on them that poor Africans might want to eat the meat they see every day.

If hunters were truly interested in feeding poor Africans, they would take the money they spend on these faux-manliness-affirming hunting safaris and spend it directly on efforts to feed or provide medical care for those poor people. It would do a lot more good for a lot more people.

You exactly prove my point in the initial post.

1) Immediate Personal Attack-Check

2) No Conservation Analysis-Check

3) The added bonus of liberal,urban western paternalism with "Food and Medical Care."-Check

Besides what makes you think my main motivation was feeding poor Africans? My sole (philanthropic) goal is conservation of wildlife and wildlands and the only way to do that is to give poor Africans a stake in the local wildlife.

However, I submit that I did a better job of feeding poor Africans (through employment and meat) than countless checks sent to charity organizations-where the money may have to pass through strongmen.

The only thing you left out was "Hunt with a camera-not a gun"-You know, in addition to everything else we got to do-Mrs Spock and I did a pretty good job on the "Photo" end of things. We took over 1,000 pictures.

[Spock]

>>>faux-manliness-affirming hunting safaris <<<

One thing gives me great pleasure and that is that you will never be able to comprehend the main reasons for "faux-manliness-affirming hunting safaris." Among them is to 1)"Not be a Number"-You like cruises and more power to you-but you will always be just a number. 2)Another is to have experiences that few people on the planet have had-and you know what-very few of them have to do with shooting. 3)Get somewhere closer to "True Africa" than a tourist does.

1) The bird hunt was not planned-we were almost forced into it because Government Corruption precluded other options for a few days. I had never read an article anywhere about the genuine joy that the hunting crew had during this day and a half. This memory is mine and Mrs.Spock's and is one of our favorite recollections and it is something very few people on the planet have experienced. Any "Native Joy" that you see on your cruises/trips will likely be faked for tips.

2) I think you really want me to tell a "faux-manliness-affirming hunting safaris" weapons story so I will give you one related to the bird hunt. I had 2 PH's along-they were supposed to be armed (as I was) whenever we went into the bush. This is also common practice on walking photo safaris in dangerous game areas-you would likely have an armed guard in front and in back.

At one point, Mrs. S and our white PH stayed back at the truck while myself (using a guide's shotgun-I had a rifle along but no shotgun) and the 4 or 5 guys of the hunting crew headed into the bush for guinea fowl. After we left, Mrs S told the white PH that "I think Mr.Spock is the only one that is armed"-He said "Oh, No Chris's guy grabbed his rifle for him.

Well guess what-The crew was so excited about hunting the birds that Mr. Spock was the only one armed (and with a shotgun, at that)-The crew had abandoned all thoughts of protocol etc. because we were after some stupid birds.

Do I feel "Faux Manly" about that?-I don't know-maybe? But whatever I feel about it, it is as Funny as Hell and Mrs S and I laugh about it often and you will never come close to experiencing anything like it-and you know what-it is also something that very few people on the planet will experience.

3) "True Africa"-wherever you go on a trip, you will always be told "Pretty Stories" for the tourists. You will never be told of things like the elephant overpopulation in Botswana-because the assumption is that you couldn't handle things like that.

[Spock]

SSS>>>But those villagers would get a lot more good out of what that money could buy if donated by someone who truly cared about helping them, instead of justifying their pastime<<<

Obviously, you are not up on the burgeoning literature about how aid hurts Africa instead of helping it. I actually wouldn't expect you to be familiar with it-because it is out of your comfort zone-but books(by Africans) like "Dead Aid" could provide some background.

I creep Mrs. S's Facebook account and a few months ago there was a major discussion (and navel-gazing) among Leftists there about the possible harm they were doing on church-type missions to Latin America.

So the "Trade, Not Aid" school is not only present among us Ernest Hemingway wannabe types-Altho, I prefer to put myself in the Selous Scout wannabe camp. So you could at least get that right.

[Bob Juch]

If you think "True Africa" is about killing animals you're living 100 years too late.

[BackInTex]

If you think "True Africa" is about killing animals you're living 100 years too late.

And you've been there how many times?

[silverscreenselect]

Do I feel "Faux Manly" about that?-I don't know-maybe? But whatever I feel about it, it is as Funny as Hell and Mrs S and I laugh about it often and you will never come close to experiencing anything like it-and you know what-it is also something that very few people on the planet will experience.

You're right that I'm never going to have the experience of being the only person in a group to pump shotgun shells into a flock of defenseless birds. Somehow, I don't think I'll miss that. On the other hand, I have had the experience of actually having a dangerous animal charging at me and I didn't have a shotgun, rifle, or anything other than a walking stick to defend myself with. That's another experience few people are going to have, and, frankly, one I would rather not have experienced. But at the end of the day, both the boar and I walked away from it and all it cost me was the price of a tank of gas.

[Beebs52]

Do I feel "Faux Manly" about that?-I don't know-maybe? But whatever I feel about it, it is as Funny as Hell and Mrs S and I laugh about it often and you will never come close to experiencing anything like it-and you know what-it is also something that very few people on the planet will experience.

You're right that I'm never going to have the experience of being the only person in a group to pump shotgun shells into a flock of defenseless birds. Somehow, I don't think I'll miss that. On the other hand, I have had the experience of actually having a dangerous animal charging at me and I didn't have a shotgun, rifle, or anything other than a walking stick to defend myself with. That's another experience few people are going to have, and, frankly, one I would rather not have experienced. But at the end of the day, both the boar and I walked away from it and all it cost me was the price of a tank of gas.

You must be a vegan.

[Spock]

Do I feel "Faux Manly" about that?-I don't know-maybe? But whatever I feel about it, it is as Funny as Hell and Mrs S and I laugh about it often and you will never come close to experiencing anything like it-and you know what-it is also something that very few people on the planet will experience.

You're right that I'm never going to have the experience of being the only person in a group to pump shotgun shells into a flock of defenseless birds. Somehow, I don't think I'll miss that. On the other hand, I have had the experience of actually having a dangerous animal charging at me and I didn't have a shotgun, rifle, or anything other than a walking stick to defend myself with. That's another experience few people are going to have, and, frankly, one I would rather not have experienced. But at the end of the day, both the boar and I walked away from it and all it cost me was the price of a tank of gas.

Boar-HaHA HA.Let me tell you about boar/bull and dangerous mama cows -etc

You are very fond of the term "Faux Manly" to describe masculine situations-but I started wondering-Have you ever really done anything seriously with "The Guys"?-and No, watching sports doesn't count because that is about "Faux Manly" as you can get-living vicariously through the efforts of others.

Maybe a deep sea fishing trip or something?-or are you the guy that never really has been included in anything-so you have to tear down "The Guys" and what they do.

[littlebeast13]

Do I feel "Faux Manly" about that?-I don't know-maybe? But whatever I feel about it, it is as Funny as Hell and Mrs S and I laugh about it often and you will never come close to experiencing anything like it-and you know what-it is also something that very few people on the planet will experience.

You're right that I'm never going to have the experience of being the only person in a group to pump shotgun shells into a flock of defenseless birds. Somehow, I don't think I'll miss that. On the other hand, I have had the experience of actually having a dangerous animal charging at me and I didn't have a shotgun, rifle, or anything other than a walking stick to defend myself with. That's another experience few people are going to have, and, frankly, one I would rather not have experienced. But at the end of the day, both the boar and I walked away from it and all it cost me was the price of a tank of gas.

You must be a vegan.

I am totally against hunting for non-dietary needs.... but that shooting into a flock of defenseless birds has a lot of appeal at certain times of year...

Spoiler

lb13

[Beebs52]

You're right that I'm never going to have the experience of being the only person in a group to pump shotgun shells into a flock of defenseless birds. Somehow, I don't think I'll miss that. On the other hand, I have had the experience of actually having a dangerous animal charging at me and I didn't have a shotgun, rifle, or anything other than a walking stick to defend myself with. That's another experience few people are going to have, and, frankly, one I would rather not have experienced. But at the end of the day, both the boar and I walked away from it and all it cost me was the price of a tank of gas.

You must be a vegan.

I am totally against hunting for non-dietary needs.... but that shooting into a flock of defenseless birds has a lot of appeal at certain times of year...

Spoiler

lb13

The resolution on my computer is too dark to see. What kind of birdies? Also, who said those bird shooters weren't going to eat the birds? I know people who hunt and they eat everything they kill. We get some stuff, too. It's good.

[littlebeast13]

You must be a vegan.

I am totally against hunting for non-dietary needs.... but that shooting into a flock of defenseless birds has a lot of appeal at certain times of year...

Spoiler

lb13

The resolution on my computer is too dark to see. What kind of birdies? Also, who said those bird shooters weren't going to eat the birds? I know people who hunt and they eat everything they kill. We get some stuff, too. It's good.

They are nasty, disgusting, mangy, disease infested, squawking, nuisance starlings, I believe. They were really bad the year I took the picture. Flocks upon flocks of them would descend upon my yard every afternoon for over a month. They were loud enough to wake me up in the daytime... and I've slept through neighbors putting on new roofs before. I don't know if starling is edible, but I don't care. Fire away... and give SSS a gun too, make yourself useful, son!

lb13

[silverscreenselect]

You are very fond of the term "Faux Manly" to describe masculine situations-but I started wondering-Have you ever really done anything seriously with "The Guys"?-and No, watching sports doesn't count because that is about "Faux Manly" as you can get-living vicariously through the efforts of others.

I consider supporting a wife and family to be more manly than taking pot shots at helpless animals. And, not that I feel it makes me any more manly but I've done quite a bit of hiking in some of the more rugged wilderness in the Georgia and North Carolina mountains. I didn't do it because I felt a need to prove my "manliness" but because it was good exercise and a chance to get back to nature. And a wild boar is a very large hog with some very nasty tusks, not a cow.

I'm not a vegan, and I know what killing animals entails. I don't consider the people who work in slaughterhouses "manly" because they kill cows and chickens; it's doing a not very glamorous job. At least they recognize it as such and don't think they're somehow proving their manhood. Because you've got a high powered rifle and are sneaking up on some animal to try to get off a shot before it can run away from you doesn't make it any more "manly."

[Spock]

Do I feel "Faux Manly" about that?-I don't know-maybe? But whatever I feel about it, it is as Funny as Hell and Mrs S and I laugh about it often and you will never come close to experiencing anything like it-and you know what-it is also something that very few people on the planet will experience.

You're right that I'm never going to have the experience of being the only person in a group to pump shotgun shells into a flock of defenseless birds. Somehow, I don't think I'll miss that. On the other hand, I have had the experience of actually having a dangerous animal charging at me and I didn't have a shotgun, rifle, or anything other than a walking stick to defend myself with. That's another experience few people are going to have, and, frankly, one I would rather not have experienced. But at the end of the day, both the boar and I walked away from it and all it cost me was the price of a tank of gas.

You must be a vegan.

Admittedly(Later on) , he is not a vegan-and he obviously supports a food production system/immigration policy where endless waves of immigrant labor keep slaughterhouse wages cheap. When I was a kid slaughterhouse jobs were good union jobs-waves of immigration killed that. Nice segue to the other topic, if I say so myself

I guess he prefers his "Defenseless Birds" killed by Somalis/Karens/Mexicans or whatever the latest wage-cheapening Ethnic wave is.