> “… a large number of young men chose to set out on extremely risky voyages in hopes of acquiring wealth and esteem in foreign lands.”
The present-day “incels” don’t seem inclined to set out on any kind of voyages or, more generally, to take any risks — they just complain online from the safety of their parents’ homes.
The vast majority of them do not "just complain". This is a media myth.
Additionally, it is the very same developed world which has repeatedly hammered down any risk-taking behavior in men as as a whole by either ridiculing it or making it illegal. If the world wants men to take risks, set a precedent.
The media absolutely loves to celebrate men who take risks and succeed. The reason why self-identifying incels don’t appear in those reports probably isn’t a vast conspiracy to hammer them down.
Society's job is to keep functioning. Part of that is eliminating risks. Men are risky to society because they generally are aggressive and are often willing to go through with their aggressive ideas. That is why you see the feminizing of men. Talking about your feelings, etc. This doesn't work for men. Action works for men. They have eliminated most sources of action.
Society has not failed men, society has succeeded. If you want to be a man who channels your aggression, you need to strike out on your own or build an army of followers. There are still outlets for manly activities, they are just different.
I'm sorry, are you claiming that talking about feelings is something only for women? That talking about feelings precludes taking action and achieving self-actualization?
You can be a little more charitable when reading others' comments rather than baiting a response in bad faith.
The bottomline is, for men, talking over taking action as a strategy is likely a detriment rather than a benefit or even just a neutral. How that strategy works out for women, or how it ranks among other strategies, is not relevant to GP's point. The only implication "feminizing" has here, is that women are not nearly as punished for prioritizing talking as a strategy as men are.
What response am I baiting, exactly? I am challenging the contents of the post. If I misunderstood the author's intentions when they said
> That is why you see the feminizing of men. Talking about your feelings, etc. This doesn't work for men. Action works for men. They have eliminated most sources of action
then the author has failed to communicate effectively. Because on face value, this claim is unfounded, uncited and frankly sexist.
> The bottomline is
No, let's not shift discussion away from that which I objected. I objected to OP's sexist rhetoric. I don't care about the bottom line, if everything above it is invalid.
> The only implication "feminizing" has here, is that women are not nearly as punished for prioritizing talking as a strategy as men are.
Source?
Anyway, I asked OP to clarify their comment and I will wait for OP to do that instead of letting someone else re-interpret their words.
Explain, then, why men commit suicide at a higher rate than women, and that men have worse educational outcomes. Simple, quantifiable examples of why society is not built for men.
Assuming they started as far as Trondheim, did they really have to go as far as kyiv (1400 miles/2200km) or Malta (2500 miles/4000km); "just to find wives"?
The argument is even more ridiculous for scandinavians from Jutland, Gotland or the mythic jomsviking from Pomerania who where already on the continent or very close to the continent. They only had to raid people a few hundred of kilometers away to reach brides.
Note that it is a review of sorts, in turn referring to several other sources on the topic of selective female infanticide and skewed demographics with regard to sex. It also raises several other theories for discussion about causes for the Viking Age.
Since some people commenting here appear to do so based in the impression that women forcibly kidnapped from foreign populations would become the wives, also note that the main idea suggested is acquiring wealth and social standing to compete for the shortage of eligible wives in their own culture.
14 comments
[ 249 ms ] story [ 163 ms ] threadSociety has failed these men.
> “… a large number of young men chose to set out on extremely risky voyages in hopes of acquiring wealth and esteem in foreign lands.”
The present-day “incels” don’t seem inclined to set out on any kind of voyages or, more generally, to take any risks — they just complain online from the safety of their parents’ homes.
The vast majority of them do not "just complain". This is a media myth.
Additionally, it is the very same developed world which has repeatedly hammered down any risk-taking behavior in men as as a whole by either ridiculing it or making it illegal. If the world wants men to take risks, set a precedent.
Society has not failed men, society has succeeded. If you want to be a man who channels your aggression, you need to strike out on your own or build an army of followers. There are still outlets for manly activities, they are just different.
The bottomline is, for men, talking over taking action as a strategy is likely a detriment rather than a benefit or even just a neutral. How that strategy works out for women, or how it ranks among other strategies, is not relevant to GP's point. The only implication "feminizing" has here, is that women are not nearly as punished for prioritizing talking as a strategy as men are.
> That is why you see the feminizing of men. Talking about your feelings, etc. This doesn't work for men. Action works for men. They have eliminated most sources of action
then the author has failed to communicate effectively. Because on face value, this claim is unfounded, uncited and frankly sexist.
> The bottomline is
No, let's not shift discussion away from that which I objected. I objected to OP's sexist rhetoric. I don't care about the bottom line, if everything above it is invalid.
> The only implication "feminizing" has here, is that women are not nearly as punished for prioritizing talking as a strategy as men are.
Source?
Anyway, I asked OP to clarify their comment and I will wait for OP to do that instead of letting someone else re-interpret their words.
take a deep breath. None of what you said is true.
The argument is even more ridiculous for scandinavians from Jutland, Gotland or the mythic jomsviking from Pomerania who where already on the continent or very close to the continent. They only had to raid people a few hundred of kilometers away to reach brides.
Note that it is a review of sorts, in turn referring to several other sources on the topic of selective female infanticide and skewed demographics with regard to sex. It also raises several other theories for discussion about causes for the Viking Age.
Since some people commenting here appear to do so based in the impression that women forcibly kidnapped from foreign populations would become the wives, also note that the main idea suggested is acquiring wealth and social standing to compete for the shortage of eligible wives in their own culture.