The Masculinity of the Manly Men - ... or something

So is the story about this. In some way. At least some cliche of manliness that's been broadcasted up and down the ranges of entertainment. And then there's ... tolerance and inclusivity. Uhm ...

I mean, if I want to be fairly and squarely open and enlightened on the things that probably do matter in some way, regardless of how far out there - and how thoroughly idiotic they might appear to me, I think I can start by generously extending my tolerance bias where it intersects with what we might call repugnant attitude, behavior or opinion - and stuff.

And sure - uhm, here's the thing: For me to come around to think of them not as repugnant, but sound and fairly held and all that - so that individuals who might count themselves amongst those could feel welcomed and affirmed - it would have to turn out to be so. So would "those", by tendency as I see it, believe in some higher moral absolute. And the fervor with which that belief is being held, the more - so the tendency I behold - repugnant the associated mindset becomes. Sort-of.
I mean, we may have to here then at first discuss whether or not there is such a thing - or of we for the sake of it do or do not want to entertain the idea - as an absolute truth or higher moral standard. For if we do not settle it, one might always excuse themselves by invoking the opposite of what we're currently acknowledging or so. To that end then it might help to simply take both sides.
So - if we don't believe in a higher moral standard - everything is relative and hence there is no implicit standard we ought to be beholden to. If we do believe in a higher moral standard - we ought to figure out what it is, why it is and do our best to not get it confused.

Needless to say: I do however have a standard of sorts. How well or unwell it has been formulated thus far aside ... everyone kind of has one more or less well thought out "base ideology" we might call it. I might come to speak of mine, make reference to it and such - as a reason for why I think this or that way about something. You should thereby know that this then is more of a me thing than it is a you thing. So, it's less about "your" idea per change being inherently repugnant, but about "my" idea being such that yours would appear that way.

As the saying goes, that the devil's in the detail, things aren't often as similar or different as they seem to be. However, on top of that is reality not always as ... "granular" as we'd like or want it to be.
So, masculinity for instance - not necessarily the toxic type - has this cliche "wroom wroom, make it big" type of thing to itself. And cis women probably need to be told, that for the most part it is a very "from the balls" type of thing. Where the female biology - and anatomy for that - is very cautious and concerned and ... yea, introverted, the male "stuff" is very ... uh ... "badaboom". All these descriptions I suppose sound very much as intended.
And that's just a thing that ... is. Naturally there is variance. Some people I'd say a more "top heavy", as in ... acting and feeling with their heart or brain rather than the sex hormones, but that too isn't all positive. Pride and Ego come to mind. And as all the masculine traits can compound in their negative ways so can the female, but that isn't really the issue here.

So - that was to set the stage. In and of itself we can describe these features as very childish or child-like. Naivity in a way that isn't all that harmful. It is a way of things and for us as humans there is no way around getting along with them. "Dealing with them" so-to-speak, not by ... "dealing" with them ~ ish. Which is a good point to go off on a somewhat unrelated tangent. Like ... on inclusivity, tolerance and all that.
Some might also call it "gay" - as I suppose there's a point to the idea that this kind of thinking or reasoning, rationality, is not straight on the 'wroom wroom, make it big' line. And in as far as life is supposed to be fun - on and off at least - there's a certain degree of tolerance we must afford in these cases, but ... if life were that easy or simple we wouldn't be here.

I mean, life ... just so happens to be an issue between individuals. Or how to put it. If each and every one wants to receive "the respect they deserve" - or how to put it - matters such as boundaries and sensitivities need to be regarded or drawn. But that is also just the simplest part of it all. The first step - prior to even regarding individual skills and the like.
And having the kind of sensitivity to navigate any kind of sense of 'generality' - to everyone's best interest - is like one of those finer details that Spirituality and Religiosity DO hint at; Being practically THE highest virtue, probably, well ... next to "Slay the heathen" and all that.

But, back to the point. So, Masculinity. So - making things go big is a male thing. Sure, some women like to do things themselves, but that isn't really the issue here. So, can we then talk about individual growth. So, talking about growth and so ... going big ... would or "should" be in line with the male spirit, but the requirements for growth aren't necessarily as simple as "wroom wroom, make it big".
And perhaps the expression is intentionally somewhat gender ambiguous.

To look at it from the other side, where let's say: Sympathy for masculine behavior isn't afforded so generously, the desire or demand of the modern man for big things is much more like the thirst of a raving slut, than a virtue of manliness. There is like ... no inherent skill or cultural benefit to for instance merely buying the bigger car. And it when it comes to the fun driving it, like "engine go brrr", we might call that very slut brained.
That we'd still be OK with calling it more of a male thing is I think owed to the deeper nuances of the subject matter. Testosterone being more of an "action" hormone, lends itself to the formation of an action oriented brain - and thus a more intimate familiarity with action oriented activities. Such as driving a fast car ... fast. Which however shouldn't easily be done without the necessary recognition of the potential hazard. And sure, one might also have to add that this isn't necessarily a gender thing. For, to skillfully navigate a car through danger isn't merely a function of wanting to do it; A.k.a. having the tendency towards risk-taking.

Naturally, nobody would really think even nearly as deep when it comes to things such as expressing ones self or being true to one's feelings or what not. However, the point is that on and off we kind of have to. And, I suppose, that's also a bit of a challenge. Perhaps so to the manly men.

The thing then is this: The culture war, or to not take it back THAT far: The fight for acceptance, is an ongoing thing. And I suppose that most of us like to think that once ignoring all the crazy people, we live in a pretty enlightened age. People generally can be themselves - at least here in the west and live a life in health, wealth and harmony. So would people generally not go out of their way to harass minorities - but then again ... it might be too early to take it all for granted.

What that culture war now boils down to - is still for people to express their grievances to a point where those can be or are respected. With the Christian spirit by the way being that to lean more towards giving people the benefit of the doubt. And if they (non-Christians) betray your/our good will, we're told to take it. And sure, it can sting. To then not go and start a generations lasting blood feud or such over it.

Sometimes then, these changes require more than just for the "people who suffer" to express their grievances. It usually also requires the privileged to make them concessions. "Gendering" is one such topic. On and off I hear, or rather read, people being incredibly upset because how dare someone ask them to consider? Sure could we talk about it - but often enough is attitude reflected in the tone of an expression; And I guess we all understand, or most anyway, what it's like when someone talks shit in a way that doesn't 'sound' like they're open for a serious conversation. And with that being the "POC" (point of contact) - it can be safely assumed that no proper amount of consideration is being paid (yet) - because that would require even more than "just not talking shit".

And sure; Eventually there is no conversation to be had. Because the entire issue there merely boils down to resistence by ability. Sure is it a grievance; And we ought to listen to it perhaps - I however don't really see the "oppressed minority" in that frame just yet. Oh ... it's there on the other side of the room.

OK, maybe it is a bit much to talk of 'oppression' in this frame ... but all that's being asked is a little bit of consideration. I argue that it only takes a little bit of reflection, introspection, acknowledgement and all that - for the gist of it to sink in and take effect from there. I mean, it happens automatically. I mean, in as far as some people like to compare the demand to being asked to constantly walk on eggshells - the same is true for minorities that don't really know how people might react to them simply existing. And this sure isn't just an LGBTQ issue.

I mean - for what I care about, we're interested in changing the climate of our co-existence. Not to create some artificial kind of double-speak that people need to uphold with the most urgent degree of discipline.

The New Testament says something about "circumcision of the heart". And I know, among atheists it's kind of in to be super uncool with circumcision because ... stuff ... but, there truly are people to whome the foreskin functions as an actual cheese factory. But also OK, we nowadays have some kind of hygiene standards. To then say as much "I don't care 'how' you do it" - and if you need to insist on growing cheese within the nooks and crannies of your ... being ... please keep it to yourself. Thank you!