A conversation with Brett McKay: Strength and Manliness

[Mark Rippetoe]

https://t.co/cGLNwz73ym

[Matt Reynolds]

Excellent stuff here! And an excellent expansion of our listenership/readership.

Thankful to have Brett be behind what we are doing.

Matt

[spacediver]

Nice to have the pin firing stuff on video - really fascinating.

My impression is that the impulse against masculinity is based on the fear that its expression is bound up with a bunch of bad stuff that truly is harmful. "Testosterone" can really fuck things up sometimes.

I also worry that, just as many white nationalists conflate virtues like honor, courage, etc. with a specific set of genotypes associated with a particular race, so may some do similarly with respect to a particular sex. In the case of sex, this may be for better or for worse - it's the "worse" that I think shouldn't be ignored.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Please explain further.

[spacediver]

Well, testosterone can do some marvelous things that are beautiful, useful, and downright sexy. However, while the ability to be aggressive and make hasty decisions is vital in some contexts, it can be counterproductive in others. Testosterone may help win wars, but I imagine the hormone is implicated in starting many unnecessary wars.

As for ideals of manliness, I feel that sometimes people take whatever virtues they hold dear, and map them onto whatever construct they most strongly identify with. This is what it is to be a good Christian. This is what it is to be a good Aryan. This is what it is to be a good Muslim. This is what it is to be a good Man. Sometimes this process becomes so pathological that anyone who doesn't fit the identity (christian, man, etc.) is considered inferior in any number of ways.

That's one of the ways in which the "for worse" can manifest.

[Mark Rippetoe]

One of the basic tenets of "manliness" has always been the productive management of testosterone -- the prevention of the "for worse" aspects. Always been, part of the Ethos. I am not prepared to define the Good Aryan, Moslem, or Christian, but defining a good man seems to be attainable, both as concept and as actor. I don't think it's particularly squishy, and I think you know that. I think you might want to appear more uncertain that you, in fact, are, so as to remain plausibly apologetic. Perhaps?

[spacediver]

It's not something I've yet contemplated deeply, so the uncertainty is authentic. More to the point, my original comment was aimed at explaining the impulse against masculinity (something that was brought up in the video). Society's impulse, in this case, may not be refined enough to incorporate the idea that a healthy, sustainable, pastured construct of manliness exists.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Society's impulse, in this case, may not be refined enough to incorporate the idea that a healthy, sustainable, pastured construct of manliness exists.

Quite likely true, at this point in the history of western society.

[wal]

What are you doing with that Gadsden Navy Jack in the background? Would not the Franklin "Join or Die" motto be better?

[Mugaaz]

Isn't the reason that weakness is valued by society in general as it leads to more job opportunities? A person being unable to change their oil, put on a spare, refinish a hardwood floor, move their couch, do their own taxes, mow their lawn, etc. All these create job opportunities for someone else.