“Masculinity is a decorative feature that is essentially counter-productive.”

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
via Small Dead Animals

Because You Need To Be Told These Things

By David Thompson on April 26, 2016 9:02 AM | 4 CommentsWhat, you didn't know?

In the pages of the Guardian, masculinity is once again being piously disdained. This time by Mr Grayson Perry, a part-time transvestite and maker of unattractive pottery:

The Turner prize-winning artist has turned his sights on the survivalist [Bear Grylls] and his exceptionally rugged version of masculinity, arguing that it isn’t fit for the 21st century. “He celebrates a masculinity that is useless,” Perry said… Perry said that the masculine ideal presented by shows such as The Island, in which Grylls is currently putting a third group of hapless contestants through survivalist hell, is making it harder for men to successfully negotiate modern life. “Men might be good at taking the risk of stabbing someone or driving a car very fast, but when it comes to opening up, men are useless,” Perry told the Radio Times in an interview to promote his new series, All Man.

And then, because we haven’t had one in a while, a classic Guardian sentence:


“Masculinity is a decorative feature that is essentially counter-productive.”

Well, it’s true that rafting skills and urine-drinking may be niche concerns and of obvious practical use only to explorers, hardy outdoors types, and people whose package holidays have gone catastrophically wrong. But – and it’s quite a big one - there’s something to be said for seeing people in unfamiliar and rather trying circumstances achieving more – sometimes much more - than they thought they ever could. Which is both the premise and appeal of Mr Grylls’ various, quite popular TV programmes. However, showing people that they may be much more capable than they previously believed, resulting in a sense of great personal satisfaction, is apparently unimportant, a mere “hangover” from more primitive, less Guardian-friendly times.

Regarding the claim that masculinity is functionally obsolete and is now merely decorative, and at risk of seeming unkind, readers are invited to compare the mugshots of Mr Perry and Mr Grylls, these two contrasting expressions of modern masculinity, and ponder which is likely to attract the more widespread and vigorous sexual attention. Or indeed which of them might be more likely to prevail in a more hazardous physical exchange – say, an attempted mugging. And on the supposed uselessness of archetypal masculine skills, Mr Grylls’ lengthy television career, his extensive property portfolio, and his estimated annual earnings from UK merchandising alone of £3.3 million, rather speaks for itself.

davidthompson: He’s Being Rugged, And We Can’t Have That

I compared their photos and just can't tell which is which



https://www.google.ca/search?q=Gray...xqzMAhWGmoMKHcvYCc0Q_AUIBygB&biw=1536&bih=681

prize-winning artist
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
haha,
now just try and un-see that

At least Grylls has the skills to hack his way through fifty miles of rugged bush, just to get a to an emergency blindfold.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,412
1,668
113
I don't think we should take anything seriously that is uttered by a guy who is famous for dressing up as a toilet roll holder doll. Leave that to the Guardianistas.
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
In a odd way this man has a point. Masculinity is rather useless in this society, Unfortunately. And this is amplified with the fact femininity has lost most of its appeal. It's a odd consequence of the capitalist system.
 

Johnnny

Frontiersman
Jun 8, 2007
9,388
124
63
Third rock from the Sun
In a odd way this man has a point. Masculinity is rather useless in this society, Unfortunately. And this is amplified with the fact femininity has lost most of its appeal. It's a odd consequence of the capitalist system.

Technology is the reason for this trend change. Traditionally people who couldn't fill masculine rolls are doing so now, because technology is making things less tough.

Beards are just a fashion trend that just means your posh now.

In Toronto for example you got guys with Beards and skin tight jeans, but I doubt any of them operated a jack leg before, let alone get their hands dirty.(Pants gave it away).

In scumbury ain't no local going to wear skin tight jeans while sporting a beard. But I garuntee you unlike his bearded compatriot down south he can competently operate heavy machinery
 
Last edited:

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
Technology is the reason for this trend change. Traditionally people who couldn't fill masculine rolls are doing so now, because technology is making things less tough.

Beards are just a fashion trend that just means your posh now.

In Toronto for example you got guys with Beards and skin tight jeans, but I doubt any of them operated a jack leg before, let alone get their hands dirty.(Pants gave it away).

In scumbury ain't no local going to wear skin tight jeans while sporting a beard. But I garuntee you unlike his bearded compatriot down south he can competently operate heavy machinery

The point I was trying to make is society would be better served if we all were women at this point, only because it would add to the chance of kids being made. Something women decided to stop doing, and is fairly more essential to our survival then manly men being manly.

Unless handing over the world to a culture like Islam is your idea of a great future.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
Kind of reminds me of an old Bugs Bunny/Yosemite Sam cartoon in the Yukon that started with, "Back in the days when men were men, and women were women. A darn fine arrangement."
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Gotta wonder what some people think masculinity means, if they can dismiss it as merely decorative and counter-productive. They must be working from post-modern academic feminism's understanding of it, that we're all dangerous, barely controlled power-mad rapists ready to bust out into murder, mayhem,and pillage mode at the slightest provocation, not to be trusted alone with the women and children. I find it tiresome and stupid.

The point I was trying to make is society would be better served if we all were women at this point, only because it would add to the chance of kids being made.
Can't make kids without men.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Gotta wonder what some people think masculinity means, if they can dismiss it as merely decorative and counter-productive. They must be working from post-modern academic feminism's understanding of it, that we're all dangerous, barely controlled power-mad rapists ready to bust out into murder, mayhem,and pillage mode at the slightest provocation, not to be trusted alone with the women and children. I find it tiresome and stupid.

Can't make kids without men.
Weeeell, unfortunately, that probably isn't true, anymore.
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
Can't make kids without men.

Women is still your limit at how fast your society can reproduce Dexter.

Here let me break it down for you.

If you have 99 males and 1 women.

You can reproduce & grow your population at the speed of 1 birth a year.

If you have 99 women and 1 male.

You can reproduce & grow your population at the speed of 99 birth a year.

This is why males have always assumed the riskier business of life, as 1 males death will not slow the reproduction capacity of a tribe/society.

That's why our culture has saying like "save the women and children first." And military life is mostly a male business, so is most high risk jobs like construction.

It's a hard wired survival instict.

Now this being said.

When I said earlier in this thread that, our society would benefit more from males magically transforming themselves into women to help birth more children.
I'm saying this because women have mostly abandoned the task of having as many children as possible.

The reason I'm conserned with that, is a ultra pro birth rate religion like Islam, who enslave their women, have specifically argued that it could infiltrate our society and out populate us. 14 Islamist to our growth of 1.

It's been clearly communicated and they have been filmed saying this. :lol: It's clearly defined as part of their military plan to conquer the world.

Any feminist that can't understand that this is the biggest danger feminism faces today is ignorantly bliss from stupidity.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Here let me break it down for you.
Yes, I'm aware of all that. And why do you suppose it is that among humans, and in fact in mammalian species generally as far as I know, the numbers of males and females are consistently approximately equal? If a 1:99 male-female ratio was evolutionarily sound, that's what we'd have. The fact that we don't means it's not a good survival tactic.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
I don't think we should take anything seriously that is uttered by a guy who is famous for dressing up as a toilet roll holder doll. Leave that to the Guardianistas.


Wow, that's disturbing.

I was counterproductive with some firewood most of the day, it was beutiful, bright sunshine a nice warm 5C SW wind, I could smell the orange blossoms.

via Small Dead Animals

Because You Need To Be Told These Things

By David Thompson on April 26, 2016 9:02 AM | 4 CommentsWhat, you didn't know?

In the pages of the Guardian, masculinity is once again being piously disdained. This time by Mr Grayson Perry, a part-time transvestite and maker of unattractive pottery:

The Turner prize-winning artist has turned his sights on the survivalist [Bear Grylls] and his exceptionally rugged version of masculinity, arguing that it isn’t fit for the 21st century. “He celebrates a masculinity that is useless,” Perry said… Perry said that the masculine ideal presented by shows such as The Island, in which Grylls is currently putting a third group of hapless contestants through survivalist hell, is making it harder for men to successfully negotiate modern life. “Men might be good at taking the risk of stabbing someone or driving a car very fast, but when it comes to opening up, men are useless,” Perry told the Radio Times in an interview to promote his new series, All Man.

And then, because we haven’t had one in a while, a classic Guardian sentence:


“Masculinity is a decorative feature that is essentially counter-productive.”

Well, it’s true that rafting skills and urine-drinking may be niche concerns and of obvious practical use only to explorers, hardy outdoors types, and people whose package holidays have gone catastrophically wrong. But – and it’s quite a big one - there’s something to be said for seeing people in unfamiliar and rather trying circumstances achieving more – sometimes much more - than they thought they ever could. Which is both the premise and appeal of Mr Grylls’ various, quite popular TV programmes. However, showing people that they may be much more capable than they previously believed, resulting in a sense of great personal satisfaction, is apparently unimportant, a mere “hangover” from more primitive, less Guardian-friendly times.

Regarding the claim that masculinity is functionally obsolete and is now merely decorative, and at risk of seeming unkind, readers are invited to compare the mugshots of Mr Perry and Mr Grylls, these two contrasting expressions of modern masculinity, and ponder which is likely to attract the more widespread and vigorous sexual attention. Or indeed which of them might be more likely to prevail in a more hazardous physical exchange – say, an attempted mugging. And on the supposed uselessness of archetypal masculine skills, Mr Grylls’ lengthy television career, his extensive property portfolio, and his estimated annual earnings from UK merchandising alone of £3.3 million, rather speaks for itself.

davidthompson: He’s Being Rugged, And We Can’t Have That

I compared their photos and just can't tell which is which



https://www.google.ca/search?q=Gray...xqzMAhWGmoMKHcvYCc0Q_AUIBygB&biw=1536&bih=681

prize-winning artist

A very disturbing article, an intrusion by entirely alien ideas, which of the newly recognized genders might it be? I,m confused, perhaps my local Wellness Center has some literature, perhaps even a nature book complete with photos and a list of important diversions.
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
Yes, I'm aware of all that. And why do you suppose it is that among humans, and in fact in mammalian species generally as far as I know, the numbers of males and females are consistently approximately equal? If a 1:99 male-female ratio was evolutionarily sound, that's what we'd have. The fact that we don't means it's not a good survival tactic.

Don't say you understand when you obviously don't.

You obviously misunderstood my gender roll evolution.
You obviously misunderstand that I mentioned nothing about the 50/50 ratio.

I never mentioned 1/99 ratio as a evolutionary survival tactic. Only that males have evolved into a risk taker for survival reason.


Answer my one question please:

Can one male impregnate virtually unlimited females in a short period of time?
Can one women be impregnated unlimited times in a short period of time?

this means that a tribe\societys ability to birth is mostly limited by the number of women.

Do you understand?

If tribe A has 1 man and 99 women
And the other tribe B has 1 women and 99 men.

Which tribe has the most chances of successfully giving birth to more children? Tribe A or tribe B?

A tribes base ability to survive is counts on how many women it has, not how many males. ;)

The answer is tribe A can have 99 kids born within a year, meanwhile tribe B will only have one child born within a year.

It can be argued that this is why males have evolved to take all the risky endeavours.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,614
2,362
113
Toronto, ON
If tribe A has 1 man and 99 women
And the other tribe B has 1 women and 99 men.

Which tribe has the most chances of successfully giving birth to more children? Tribe A or tribe B?

A tribes base ability to survive is counts on how many women it has, not how many males. ;)

The answer is tribe A can have 99 kids born within a year, meanwhile tribe B will only have one child born within a year.

It can be argued that this is why males have evolved to take all the risky endeavours.

I can tell you which tribe in which the male will have more fun.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Don't say you understand when you obviously don't.

You obviously misunderstood my gender roll evolution.
You obviously misunderstand that I mentioned nothing about the 50/50 ratio.

I never mentioned 1/99 ratio as a evolutionary survival tactic. Only that males have evolved into a risk taker for survival reason.


Answer my one question please:

Can one male impregnate virtually unlimited females in a short period of time?
Can one women be impregnated unlimited times in a short period of time?

this means that a tribe\societys ability to birth is mostly limited by the number of women.

Do you understand?

If tribe A has 1 man and 99 women
And the other tribe B has 1 women and 99 men.

Which tribe has the most chances of successfully giving birth to more children? Tribe A or tribe B?

A tribes base ability to survive is counts on how many women it has, not how many males. ;)

The answer is tribe A can have 99 kids born within a year, meanwhile tribe B will only have one child born within a year.

You screwed up your summation, you botched an otherwise very good comment, I thought. There could be twins, that would be two, 100% wrong .

The women of that tribe would eventually evolve into bearing litters.