Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

gq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

#61

Post by mock-possum »

jgilias wrote: post #40
kredd wrote: post #8

My friend and I have a theory that a significant chunk of the problems mentioned in the article could be solved if every guy had a genuine platonic friend who is a girl. No data point other than every guy that I know who has close friend girls, never had problems with masculinity or something. And the opposite is true as well. I might be in a very limited bubble as well, as my very close bubble of decade+ friend grou…

It’s good to appreciate that people can be really different. For me your suggestion is a catch-22. For me to have a _close_ friendship with someone I need to like them a lot. But knowing myself, if I like someone a lot I _will_ fall in love. As in, this has happened and not once. My wife on the other hand is a direct opposite of that. From having discussed past relationships, I don’t think she even knows what falling…

So does falling for someone prevent you from being their friend?

Re: Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

#62

Post by Pigalowda »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #59
Pigalowda wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea Marcus Aurelius, what a loser Emperor. I assume you’re talking about Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

I don't mean that he was a loser, just that he obviously spent a ton of time worrying about what it means to be a good man.

Of course he did. His “Meditations” are his personal journal - he’s giving himself advice. Sort of like telling yourself to be a good person and not just think about being one

Re: Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

#63

Post by jgilias »

mock-possum wrote: post #61
jgilias wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s good to appreciate that people can be really different. For me your suggestion is a catch-22. For me to have a _close_ friendship with someone I need to like them a lot. But knowing myself, if I like someone a lot I _will_ fall in love. As in, this has happened and not once. My wife on the other hand is a direct opposite of that. From having discussed past relationships, I don’t think she even knows what falling…

So does falling for someone prevent you from being their friend?

Yes, totally, being ‘just a friend’ to someone you’ve fallen for romantically is a totally miserable experience. For me at least.

Re: Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

#64

Post by cjohnson318 »

oldpersonintx wrote: post #31
63 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take the middle ground and say I think it's more of a vicious cycle. Grow up in a dysfunctional environment and develop a bad concept of other people and of masculinity and it becomes harder and harder to break out of that as you age. Eventually someone has to do a lot of emotional work to support you while you figure out how to treat other people and yourself. A lot of times I think if it's caught early by some…

> I don't know how to fix it though Here's a start: don't simultaneously pulverize young men with progressive dogma that vilifies them while simultaneously desensitizing them to violence

> pulverize young men with progressive dogma that vilifies them

Lol, having been a young man at one time, young men need MORE reality checks, not fewer. You have to learn that your actions have real consequences, that "pretty sure" isn't enough when there are real stakes, that "luck" and "fair" are meaningless, that you're not entitled to anything from anyone, and that you have to earn respect from people for them to take you seriously. If that's considered "pulverizing them with progressive dogma", then I'm all for it.

Re: Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

#65

Post by sethammons »

cjohnson318 wrote: post #64
oldpersonintx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know how to fix it though Here's a start: don't simultaneously pulverize young men with progressive dogma that vilifies them while simultaneously desensitizing them to violence

> pulverize young men with progressive dogma that vilifies them Lol, having been a young man at one time, young men need MORE reality checks, not fewer. You have to learn that your actions have real consequences, that "pretty sure" isn't enough when there are real stakes, that "luck" and "fair" are meaningless, that you're not entitled to anything from anyone, and that you have to earn respect from people for them to…

I think the progressive dogma is not "actions have consequences" -- dads have been letting their kids put pennies in light sockets for decades and pissing off the wrong person can get you punched in the mouth.

The problem is that that young men are told they are bad, not worthy, animals, sex crazed, not to be trusted, are likely to abuse children or woman, are less intelligent, are only worth their ability to provide, should not have emotions, should know (naturally) how to be good at physical activities, should be logical, and that they should not complain. Suck it up, buttercup. They are expected to behave like well behaved girls/woman. Sit quietly in class, don't make a ruckus. That is the progressive dogma I'm seeing and have experienced.

It doesn't help when people like you, CJ, laugh it off. "Suck it up, buttercup." For what it is worth, I know _zero_ men who feel they are entitled to a woman's body or whatever you have in your imagination. The closest to entitlement I see is men wanting a job and to be able to provide. You are feeding into the same dogma. There are real issues that drive depression and suicide in men.

Re: Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

#66

Post by [deleted] »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #10
kredd wrote: post #8

My friend and I have a theory that a significant chunk of the problems mentioned in the article could be solved if every guy had a genuine platonic friend who is a girl. No data point other than every guy that I know who has close friend girls, never had problems with masculinity or something. And the opposite is true as well. I might be in a very limited bubble as well, as my very close bubble of decade+ friend grou…

I think this is just being around people with good emotional literacy. This is the core skill, and one that we don't teach. In fact society promotes toxic, reactive and non-reflective emotional handling. We need better emotional literacy and self regulation. Women tend to be better at this than men on average due to western culture.

[deleted]

Re: Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

#67

Post by cjohnson318 »

sethammons wrote: post #65
cjohnson318 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pulverize young men with progressive dogma that vilifies them Lol, having been a young man at one time, young men need MORE reality checks, not fewer. You have to learn that your actions have real consequences, that "pretty sure" isn't enough when there are real stakes, that "luck" and "fair" are meaningless, that you're not entitled to anything from anyone, and that you have to earn respect from people for them to…

I think the progressive dogma is not "actions have consequences" -- dads have been letting their kids put pennies in light sockets for decades and pissing off the wrong person can get you punched in the mouth. The problem is that that young men are told they are bad, not worthy, animals, sex crazed, not to be trusted, are likely to abuse children or woman, are less intelligent, are only worth their ability to provide…

> They are expected to behave like well behaved girls/woman. Sit quietly in class, don't make a ruckus. That is the progressive dogma I'm seeing and have experienced.

This is an astonishingly low bar, and not progressive dogma at all.

> I know _zero_ men who feel they are entitled to a woman's body

So what, the fact that you don't personally know a rapist is irrelevant. If a woman is sexually harassed or assaulted you can be 99.99% certain she was accosted by a man. If any crime at all is committed, 9 out of 10 times it's perpetrated by a man.

I had to start explaining to my kids at age 3 that they have to be super extra careful around men, and never go alone with a man anywhere. I have to explain that yeah, they can do very bad things to you, and there's almost nothing you can do back.

My girls have to live in, and navigate a world where they can be coerced by any given man, at any given time. So yeah, suck it up buttercup. Boys and men should behave like well behaved girls and women. Not sure what kind of Lord of the Flies fantasy you're trying to sign us all up for.

Re: Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

#68

Post by kredd »

userinanother wrote: post #58
germinalphrase wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in a small, Midwestern town. Distinctly conservative. These same problems existed despite there being a more direct, simple conception of masculinity (and violence was, if anything, more normalized). Your position is a contemporary cultural lightning rod, but I’m not immediately convinced.

Do you think it’s a evolutionary competition thing where older men somewhat intentionally confuse younger males to slow them down in the biological competition for mates

Not everything in the world is there to “get you”. Men who have friend girls tend to have much easier time finding “mates” in my circles. Again no citations, just observations. And it kinda passes the smell test, as it’s so much easier to talk to opposite genders when you somewhat know what’s going on in their lives.

Re: Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

#69

Post by kredd »

sethammons wrote: post #65
cjohnson318 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pulverize young men with progressive dogma that vilifies them Lol, having been a young man at one time, young men need MORE reality checks, not fewer. You have to learn that your actions have real consequences, that "pretty sure" isn't enough when there are real stakes, that "luck" and "fair" are meaningless, that you're not entitled to anything from anyone, and that you have to earn respect from people for them to…

I think the progressive dogma is not "actions have consequences" -- dads have been letting their kids put pennies in light sockets for decades and pissing off the wrong person can get you punched in the mouth. The problem is that that young men are told they are bad, not worthy, animals, sex crazed, not to be trusted, are likely to abuse children or woman, are less intelligent, are only worth their ability to provide…

Who is telling young men those? Like I genuinely have never heard that outside of Twitter, extremely-online communities and your usual podcasts that are extremes on both sides.

Re: Do You Need a Visit to the Confident Man Ranch?

#70

Post by Ferret7446 »

mnky9800n wrote: post #20
fullmoon wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all you need is someone to talk with, there is no difference.

then why pay someone to talk as opposed to going to the pub with your friend?

Bold of you to assume someone with significant issues has a friend, especially when friendship statistics (especially for men) are plunging through the ground.
Post reply on HN