It would probably be pretty effective on men too, tho XD

Hi, I’m Mare. I want that, now you know me (:

Nah it’s more like: If she didn’t want people to jerk off thinking about her, she shouldn’t have worn such provocative clothing.

I honestly don’t think we should encourage uploading this many photos as private people, but that’s something else.

You don’t need consent to jerk off to someone’s photos. You do need consent to tell them about it. Creating images is a bit riskier, but if you make sure no one ever sees them, there is no actual harm done.

Interesting (wrong) assumption there buddy.

But why would I care how people think of me? If it influences their actions, we gonna start to have problems, tho.

Oh no, hanging the pictures on your wall is fucked.

The difference is if someone else can reasonably find out. If I tell someone that I think about them/someone else while masturbating, that is sexual harassment. If I have pictures on my wall and guests could see them, that’s sexual harassment.

If I just have an encrypted folder, not a problem.

It’s like the difference between thinking someone is ugly and saying it.

Am I the only one who doesn’t care about this?

Photoshop has existed for some time now, so creating fake nudes just became easier.

Also why would you care if someone jerks off to a photo you uploaded, regardless of potential nude edits. They can also just imagine you naked.

If you don’t want people to jerk off to your photos, don’t upload any. It happens with and without these apps.

But Instagram selling apps for it is kinda fucked, since it’s very anti-porn, but then sells apps for it (to children).

I agree, that just masculinity is a bad direction, but it helps narrow down possible directions. It’s just a very easy group you are kinda born into. A lot of people seem to need frameworks to tailor their lives after, as seen by the tate-stans, or kardashian-stans for women.

I agree, that picking traits of several different people and freestyle some of your own is a better way to do it. But that is difficult sometimes and just being told what to do seems to appeal to a large chunk of people.

Kinda like using Linux vs Windows/Mac XD

Your point about loosing at gender like loosing in sports is great. I will definitely think more about the competition aspect sometime. It definitely is a thing with men (see dick-size jokes), idk if it is the same for women, though. There are definetly insults amongst women (slut/bitch) but I’m not sure if it has the same “less of insert gender” connotation.

To address this there probably needs to be a similar shift in gender roles for men, as there was for women. Women now are displaying a lot of traditionally male traits, while vegan men are called gay (derogatorily).

Idk how that shift will happen, but I think the first step would be for everyone to accept anger as an emotion. This would have multiple effects. First the “women are emotional” argument is moot, just look at crime rates. Secondly recognizing it as an emotion removes a lot of the stigma, thereby allowing men to deal with it instead of repressing. And lastly it might remove the “ranking” of emotions. Ranking in the sense, that when a woman cries and a man gets angry in response to something the man is expected to take care of the woman. This usually leads to more repressing.

All in all, I like the queer community, even if I’m mostly straight, just because I don’t have to compete in the gender game. Just not caring gives me a lot of confidence, ironically making me more masculine in traditional settings. XD

I think the traits you list are a bit too abstract. When people list traits they strive for, they are usually derived from yours.

Yours might factually fit the data, but men don’t aim to be disagreeable, they aim to be independent or confident. Same with women and being empathetic and social.

The problem is that everyone needs all those traits. This is where the author fails by saying the groups are pointless.

I think the ratio of how pronounced the traits are is what makes masculinity and femininity.

He does refer to a quote, but I think the “honorary man” wording comes from him. If he quotes it, the rest of the article still proves that he links these trait-groups exclusively to either gender.

Gender performance isn’t something you fake, like in a theater, it’s more something you do like performing in a sport. I should have clarified that.

Also being yourself is not an answer. Young people are struggling with exactly that. Being yourself only works, if you know what yourself is. Gender traits or role models can give great guidelines for what you strive to be. And somewhere along your growth as a person you will find things that work and things that don’t. But you need some “starting direction” because yourself is usually still a kid.

For the trans thing, my wording is a bit unclear.

I meant acting like a (stereotypical) man.

You can say that they are a man as soon as they identify as one. I would also treat people that way. But the goal of most trans people is being recognized as their identified gender, without stating it, also called passing.

If you talk to trans people, there is often a concept of performing gender. This includes fashion and voice, but also mannerisms. To some these mannerisms come naturally, some train them to be more in line with how they view themselves.

I think these mannerisms and to an extend fashion are things that young men are also looking to modify in order to pass as men.

The obvious difference being that trans men switch gender, while cis men just go from boys to men.

Well he doesn’t call it immoral, he just says that it doesn’t exist. (Also pretty dumb tho)

This guy is so close but got stuck jerking off his own intellectualism half way.

As a rule masculinity and femininity are both a collection of traits. Usually defined something like this:

Masculinity is assertiveness, confidence and maybe something like independence.

Femininity is Emotional intelligence, Empathy and maybe something like team-coordination.

Now I view these groups like the hormones testosterone and estrogen. You need both to function. But the ratio between them defines whether you appear masculine or feminine.

You need to be capable of displaying both groups.

However, currently one side demonizes masculine traits, while the other side calls feminine traits gay.

The Author is close to the truth, in the sense that the traits he describes as good masculine traits shouldn’t be exclusive to men. But he looses the plot by tying the traits directly and exclusively to the genders. This is illustrated by calling Margaret Thatcher an honorary man instead of a masculine woman.

Because of this he concludes, that everyone should have all traits regardless of group. This is correct but looses the significance of these groups, both in terms of role models and sexuality.

He accurately points out the issues and ridiculousness of current masculinity gurus but misses why they are appealing. The need for guidance amongst young men is evident.

But let’s leave aside all discussion of what makes someone a real “man” and just aspire to become decent human beings.

This quote betrays a general misunderstanding of what the issue is. Becoming a decent human is not a problem. The issue is becoming a (good) man. Society has gone far in expanding women’s possibilities, but the traditional roles for men have not really been changed, so they don’t fit into this new environment. This leads to a lot of confusion, to where we have cis men struggling to perform their gender and looking for help.

Now Tate and company offer some form of help. Its terrible, but it speaks to the problem, while Mr. Robinson pretends like the problem doesn’t exist and just tells young man to become good humans.

Its often interesting to view gender issues through the trans lens. In this case I would argue that the Author would approach a trans man, who is asking how to be a man very differently.

In my opinion this article is part of the problem driving more men to become Tate-stans and misogynists.

TL;DR: Everyone should display all traits, but the ratio is significant to determine overall appearance.

The existence of stereotypes like tomboy show that there is a link between traits and gender, but on an individual basis the ratio of traits can swap. And that’s also cool.

Also the author is an ideolog ignoring the problem he writes about.