Victor Villas

I think the difference between “I can’t” and “I don’t wanna” is big enough to be worth splitting. For instance, when trying to think of reasons for men that “can’t” abandon masculinity, you’re looking for externalities (pressure). If you think about why don’t men “want to”, you’ll find plenty of self-serving reasons and rationalization, which in my opinion is a more realistic framing.

Do men feel like “they can’t abandon masculinity”? Is that a widespread feeling men have?

I don’t see it much. What I see the most is men that don’t want to abandon masculinity.

I feel like you comment and sentiment could have been conveyed in a single emoji

because it’s “natural” to compulsively consume such both sugar and porn to classify them as non-addiction is a bit wishy

Well, that’s not the argument I’d make, nor does it seem to be the one presented by the sources for the article. I agree that this would be very wishy washy!

I guess it makes sense that the psychology community would push back against the claim that pornography fits a scientific definition of addiction. The same deal goes for sugar: many people talk about sugar being addictive, but it’s pretty absurd to classify sugar as addictive substance, and the article raises this point very explicitly:

That isn’t to say that people can’t use pornography compulsively, as you may compulsively eat donuts or bacon every day against the best interests of your heart

And that’s what most people usually mean when they’re addicted to it. So I wouldn’t say that it’s indoctrination or “hive mind”, it’s just how people use the word “addiction” in day-to-day, non-scientifically-precise ways. You’re absolutely right to point that out because people should not seek addiction treatment for porn consumption, but it’s also understandable to seek treatment for compulsive consumption of whatever. Just like sugar and junk food, while the science doesn’t say it’s addiction, it also presents endless evidence on the negative effects of common patterns of consumption.

I mean it’s a great way to flush out awful candidate partners

I’d say the opposite. It’s an obvious red flag that someone doesn’t open up about anything.

Show a little vulnerability and see how disinterested they get

Not my experience, but something not too different.

In every relationship, someone has to be the safe harbor for the other to withstand the occasional emotional crisis. This role can and should be taken in turns so that each one gets each other’s back. But when your insecurity/vulnerability matches with the other person, it takes a freaking HUGE amount of emotional intelligence and energy to be the person that tanks the crisis this one time and open up about this later, when the other person is ready to take turns.

What I observe in practice is that people (man and women) only learn how to deal with this situation in two extreme ways: 1) spiral into the storm along the partner - which is a fuckup because the other person is not ready for this; 2) suck it up forever and ever - which builds up resentment long-term.

There is a middle path. It takes time to acquire it, it takes even more time to teach it to a partner, but it’s one of the main ingredients of constructive conflict resolution.

That, and at the same time it’s manly to be angry.

So you’re supposed to be emotionless, unless the emotion pushes towards violence.

True male friendship is paradoxical, in that it is intimate without intimacy. Men neither touch each other physically nor discuss anything directly – what is said out loud is trivial and everything important is unspoken. If a subtext is identified, it’s quickly ignored before moving on, since no man wants to turn a subtext into an actual text over a few beers.

Is that true male friendship, though? Taking that flaky relationship and labeling it true friendship might be a contributing factor to see them not surviving the many ebbs and flows of life. My best friendships, the ones that are alive and well, are exactly NOT like that.

Yes, that’s the point. I might be splitting hairs here, but I think the portrayal of these “confusing times” as a consequence of women walking away is part of the problem. Them walking away is part of the remedy for extremist sexism, not a cause for its increase in strength.

In fact I agree many men don’t have a net positive to offer. What I disagree with is the framing that women are “deciding” that, and I wouldn’t discard the idea that the increase in women freedom is contributing factor for an uptick in extremist sexism but I also think that warrants some proper care to back it up as a claim.

think this is the case for some women

Maybe? Big difference between “a lot of women” and “for some woman”. And even so, I don’t buy that line of argument.

I take issue with the wording and that’s why I doubt this is a truthful phenomenon:

A lot of women

What is a lot here? 10% of women? 1%? 80%? Does this come from a survey? This is being offered as an explanation, so I think it’s important to not handwave this kind of qualitative analysis. If you’re going to put some responsibility on women’s attitudes, I think it warrants proper research.

are deciding

Is it a decision? Do women get to decide the consequences of the behavior of men?

There are surveys that are showing that single women are the happiest and most satisfied with their life while married women are the least.

Okay. There are also surveys that say otherwise. And even if we’re to believe that single women is the happiest cohort, can you establish a real link between that and more teens getting exposed to sexist ideology?

This all feels cheap philosophy and it’s ridiculously close of shifting the blame of men’s bad upbringing towards women being less accepting of garbage relationships. Maybe teenage men getting out of high school talking shit about alpha/beta/sigma is the reason why single women is the happiest cohort, not the other way around.

A lot of women are deciding that most men aren’t offering them anything they want or need.

I doubt that’s an accurate description of reality, but I guess that’s a good portrayal of what is perceived by these confused men.

author seems to fundamentally misunderstand Stoicism

Or rather, is using the word “Stoicism” in a different way than you are. Like when research obviously shows a link between Christianity and intolerance and people come out in droves to say that true Christianity is about love instead of hate.

Yeah, sure, you learned a neater version of stoic values. What the author is referring to is a bit more generalized, a caricature but very real form of stoicism that some people preach, sometimes even without even calling it stoicism themselves.