Football, being a real man, soldier-ing

General Discussion
1

Football.

I find myself sitting in a bricked off yard, with a middle school playing field, unseen, well except for the field lights up on their towers, maybe 200 yards from where I sit. Listening to the coach drilling the kids, previously the kids drilling themselves through calastedics - sports people sure do love to yell a lot. And the drills, oh and the intensity, go, go, go… Inside my family loves the football and the basketball and the pro-sports and all that comes with them.

I sit here on the outside and all I see is a bunch of indoctrination and busy making, like building temples or something. I think back on my high school days, I can relate to the sports thing, sort of. I got on the swim team because I felt insecure about my swimming skills, I joined wrestling because I wanted to better defend myself. Being parts of those teams and the workouts was great, but in the end we were individuals, not part of a coordinated team, I did great at JV, but never had the heart for varsity, nor worried about it. I came out of it walking fit, what more can a person want I ask? :wink:

In subsequent years I learned of Football’s popularity and financial support was always intimately linked to it’s ability to set-up young men for being good recruits and easy to mold into fine young soldiers.

https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/868205/Theodore-Roosevelt-Saves-Football/

https://www.npr.org/2007/07/31/12359528/sally-jenkins-discusses-the-real-all-americans


So okay I'm out here trying to work on something altogether different, but it's like a radio you can't turn off, next thing I know I'm thinking about a recent comment made over here at CFI.

 

It was rather chest thumping thing

about what a real man was, big and strong like a soldier, etc.

and to hell with those girlie sissy guys who spent time with children, or good forbid infants.

There was a strong intimation that child care was a demeaning thing to the masculine principle, ... or did he mean emasculating?, ... or I don't know what.  Haven't a clue because I'm on the outside looking in at those masses who fall in line with such ease - and I guess the masses gotta be controlled somehow.  It's just there's so much more to life seems to me.

Then I see these solders marching around all puffed up like their god's end all.  It's so pathetic, so self-destructive, worst is how a free thinking nation like we used to be,  how placidly we accept the same BS 'come-ons' generation after generation after generations, all the while ignoring the horrors behind them.

But, back that puffed up sense of superiority - it's ... {well, maybe we'll leave it for now.  See if anyone else has anything to add.  Besides, kids have finally finished maybe I can too.}
<blockquote>What's it mean to be a Real man?

What's it mean to be part of a pluralistic community?</blockquote>
&nbsp;
2

I think that there have been and will be times that our nation will need soldiers. I think that soldiers need to be able to kill the enemy with extreme effectiveness when the situation requires. And to hopefully be able to do this at any required time without losing their own psyche to psychopathy or to chronic PTSD.

So I tend to distinguish soldiers from the soldiers who have been in combat. I am for sure happy to allow a combat soldier to have the title of “real man” since they put their life on the line for my country (at least in intention). I don’t consider it the soldier’s short-coming if the action they were placed in is a reprehensible or otherwise stupid action determined by their chain of command. (unless they were given obviously illegal orders). So I am ok with any GI Joe, tuff guy, fellow-soldier-loving, “real man” narratives that help combat veterans, esp., get thru their days.

But I also think that it should be possible, societally, for us to incorporate various qualities that are indicative of defining a “real man” into various composites of qualities that we recognize as being those of a “real man”.

Exceptional skills at caring for or nurturing children, could definitely, imo, be part of the composite qualities that adds up for some men having what qualifies them as being a 'real man". Bloated egos and being a tuff guy and benching 300 lbs would not necessarily be among the qualities of a “real man”, but they might be.

 

3

Nicely phrased, can’t pick on anything you said about serious soldiers what they go through and the team they become. Perhaps it was the chest thumping of a chicken hawk that had me snarling.

 

OH but to keep from going down too easy: No bench pressing 300lbs, then admiring your oiled physique in the mirror does not make a “man.” IMHO, of course. :wink:

4

You know Tim, been chewing on it and I’m trying to think of the last good war. Okay WWII, Hitler was bad news and need to be stopped. Although historically WWII was only the conclusion to the unfinished WWI which was another contrived war - that the arms peddlers were pushing more than any political need.

Vietnam War - Gulf of Tonkin

Throughout these hectic few days, the Johnson administration asserted that the destroyers had been on routine patrol in international waters. In actuality, however, the destroyers were on an espionage mission in waters claimed by North Vietnam. The Johnson administration also described the two attacks as unprovoked; it never disclosed the covert U.S.-backed raids taking place. Another problem: the second attack almost certainly never occurred. Instead, it’s believed that the crewmembers of the Maddox mistook their own sonar’s pings off the rudder for North Vietnamese torpedoes. In the confusion, the Maddox nearly even fired at the Turner Joy. Yet when U.S. intelligence officials presented the evidence to policy makers, they “deliberately” omitted most of the relevant communications intercepts, according to National Security Agency documents declassified in 2005. “The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack had happened,” an NSA historian wrote. “So a conscious effort ensued to demonstrate that an attack occurred.” The Navy likewise says it is now “clear that North Vietnamese naval forces did not attack Maddox and Turner Joy that night.”

In private, Johnson himself expressed doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, reportedly telling a State Department official that “those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish!” https://www.history.com/news/the-gulf-of-tonkin-incident-50-years-ago


I’m outta time.

How about looking at this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States can you list the post WWII wars that were morally and politically “good” wars that left the world a better place - as opposed to contrived wars for private profits? Wars that strengthened America rather that weakened us.

 

See, guess one thing I’m really sick of with the constant patriotic chest thumping about soldiering is that most of time (during my life time) military actions have made our world a little worse - not better.

Soldiers have been expendable pawns in rich mens’ games of profit - but they gotta drink the Koolaid and imagine their going a “great good” thing, rather than being steadfastly lied to, used and abused. Yeah, guess that’s the nugget I’ve been trying to spit out.

Show me where I’m wrong.

5

I’m just saying that being able to bench 300 lbs should not disqualify someone from the title of “real man”.

As far as WAR! Hoomph! Good God Yall! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin.

Except for self defense or the defense of others. That one time with WWII was a pretty important one.

6

You can rightfully hold disdain for my naivety in believing the spiel that there were WMD’s. (I do) But with that belief, I was in favor of going into Iraq and eradicating any nuclear weapons that Saddam had or was about to produce. When I quickly realized that our administration did not have the wherewithal to conduct that mission effectively and in a way that would leave Iraq intact, my attitude toward the war was outrage and the outrage only grew everyday with the continuing incompetence in its administration by the Bush jr crew.

I think that u r right about our participation in wars being most often disgustingly counterproductive. Still it is most important, imo, that we retain the capacity to defend ourselves and our allies from enemies who are all for using war to get what they want.

7

Big topic.

In an evolutionary sense, high testosterone men exist and dominate most areas of life because women like them. Those men are the most likely to pass their genes on to the next generation because they get it done in the ways that actually matter in life. Men who aren’t that type have always resented them, but those “alpha” guys are what makes the species continue.

What makes a man? I think confidence, competence and strength are what makes a man. Or let’s be more blunt and say being able to light up your enemies, defend others weaker than you, and get the most attractive women is what makes a man. A guy who can’t do that will not be desired by women or be respected by other men. FWIW nurturing small children is definitely a female trait. Men suck at it and men who want to do it are rightly seen as creepy.

As a veteran I will say that serving in the military does not automatically make you a man, but it definitely doesn’t hurt in that department. I think compared to most men say, under 40 or so, military vets probably are better men than most who never served because they broke away from the society of constant pampering that they were born into.

 

8

Actually, the guys who have or make money hand over fist, are probably going to pass on the most genes. And in terms of one’s children surviving to reproduction, kids need nurturing. Guys can do it, some better than others. Just like some women can kill as well as any man.

Your comic book version of “manly men’s men” commanding the world and all women’s libidos with their macho prowess must be good for sexual fantasies.

9

Tim you’re interesting to discuss stuff with - The Guy is rather predictable in his tunnel vision.

And please Guy, the woman preferring the cave man who bonks them on their head and drags them off - is a self created fantasy. But, than of course guess there are all types of woman. Lets say that woman of quality have quality standards, and macho macho without a little empathy and sensitivity and intellect ain’t much better than pro-wrestlers.

But if you want to play that game, don’t you appreciate that knowing how to nurture a baby and handle baby’s emotional swings, many woman find quite attractive. Not to mention the potential for amazing down stream interactions and further experiences (when said lovingly competently nurtured child grows up into adulthood).

Trust me I know, first hand, not from books or fantasies. : - )

10

This thread lead me to think about Epstein (recently deceased) because he reportedly had a ranch in New Mexico where he had invited scientists and nubile young women for the purpose of accomplishing his plan of spreading his genes across the world.

I sort of doubt that he should be given the title of “real man” even if his plan were successful, since he apparently was a pimp for pedophilia with young teenage girls. Although, he also gathered an immense amount of wealth also (who knows how).

11

Football is the one sport that keeps my interest. I played through high school and still follow the professional teams. I never would have thought of a connection to the military, other than a more distant idea like the Greek Olympics, pitting their best against ours in a controlled environment. I guess there’s a little gladiator spectacle in there too. For me though, the team work required to get the ball down the field was most important. Of course there were stars and bench warmers, but we put most of that aside on the field.

There was still the individual aspect of challenging yourself and improving your own skills, but you did it for how it fit into the needs of the team. Discipline was never my strong suit, and I think I would have been a lot worse off if not for that training.

12
Actually, the guys who have or make money hand over fist, are probably going to pass on the most genes. And in terms of one’s children surviving to reproduction, kids need nurturing. Guys can do it, some better than others. Just like some women can kill as well as any man.

Your comic book version of “manly men’s men” commanding the world and all women’s libidos with their macho prowess must be good for sexual fantasies.


You don’t get out much do you? I’m sure you’ve been divorced a few times and obviously have no kids or you would know better.

13

 

And please Guy, the woman preferring the cave man who bonks them on their head and drags them off – is a self created fantasy. But, than of course guess there are all types of woman. Lets say that woman of quality have quality standards, and macho macho without a little empathy and sensitivity and intellect ain’t much better than pro-wrestlers.

But if you want to play that game, don’t you appreciate that knowing how to nurture a baby and handle baby’s emotional swings, many woman find quite attractive. Not to mention the potential for amazing down stream interactions and further experiences (when said lovingly competently nurtured child grows up into adulthood).

Trust me I know, first hand, not from books or fantasies. : – )


Didn’t the woman you had a child with divorce you?

14
This thread lead me to think about Epstein (recently deceased) because he reportedly had a ranch in New Mexico where he had invited scientists and nubile young women for the purpose of accomplishing his plan of spreading his genes across the world.

I sort of doubt that he should be given the title of “real man” even if his plan were successful, since he apparently was a pimp for pedophilia with young teenage girls. Although, he also gathered an immense amount of wealth also (who knows how).


Epstein was a stereotypical nerdy Jewish pervert who was great with finance but failed miserably with women because he lacked any masculine charm — a common thing with men in the tribe that their mothers can never seem to understand.

Jeffery is a nice boy with a good job, why can’t he find a nice girl to settle down with?

Nobody on earth considers guys like that to be real men. That said, they probably still have a better chance than you ever did.

15

That Guy if you’re only interested in denigrating, then your statements become worthless word plays divorced from reality and any interest in seeking understanding. All your energy seems focused on reinforcing your own certitude, rather than learning anything new. Easy to do when you reside within your own self-certain bubble.

 

I’d actually had something slightly loftier in mind with this thread, but when it’s a pissing contest it’s tough to get out of the gutter.

The real key I’d intended to work this conversation towards was PLURALISM - although now that I’ve taken the trouble to look it up, it turns our somewhat different from what I was taught way back. I’ve always thought Pluralism was about diverse groups of people living within society that respects each others’ strengths and weakness, we need the warrior as much as the worker, etc, etc. The idilic American melting pot and democratic process when people actually got involved and before we got too crowded and scared and hypnotized into becoming cogs in a machine.

https://www1.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/pluralism.html

Pluralism is the theory that a multitude of groups, not the people as a whole, govern the United States. These organizations, which include among others unions, trade and professional associations, environmentalists, civil rights activists, business and financial lobbies, and formal and informal coalitions of like-minded citizens, influence the making and administration of laws and policy. Since the participants in this process constitute only a tiny fraction of the populace, the public acts mainly as bystanders.


Unfortunately a part of me can’t help but agree that most voters seem too dumb and disinterested for the duty of voting competently & responsibility - but that gets us into a different can of worms, where all the solutions seem to promise even worse problems than the original problem.

So I guess it’s the shallow adulation of our military to the exclusion of everything else that has me irritated; tree hugger belong in Hell - warriors and football players and consumerism makes Merica Great, that sort of nonsense.

 

16

Oneguy, You should worship me as a “real man”, if you think depositing semen into a large number of willing women by your age or younger, supports that title. (and that was before the days when you could just get on your smartphone and find the night’s hookup by swiping left, or however that goes)

But I get it. Your testosterone is pretty much what you have that makes you feel special.

 

17

Speaking from personal experience, the “manly men” is not the thing that women are after in this day and age. It’s more about shared interests and compatibility. Most of the guys I have seen that act the way you envision don’t have long lasting or fulfilling relationships. I think I man is someone who is confident but knows his limits and when to push and when to accept. He is capable and at least tries before saying he can’t hack it. Most of all, he’s not trying to prove something to everyone else. Of course being in touch with his emotions is valuable too, and yes men are more than capable of that.

I think Guy has a flawed view of man based on the modern definition of manliness. Our ancient ancestors weren’t like that.

18

It’s nice to have your input on a non-ethereal topic, Xain.

19
He is capable and at least tries before saying he can’t hack it. Most of all, he’s not trying to prove something to everyone else.
Yes, well said.
20
Speaking from personal experience, the “manly men” is not the thing that women are after in this day and age. It’s more about shared interests and compatibility. Most of the guys I have seen that act the way you envision don’t have long lasting or fulfilling relationships. I think I man is someone who is confident but knows his limits and when to push and when to accept. He is capable and at least tries before saying he can’t hack it. Most of all, he’s not trying to prove something to everyone else. Of course being in touch with his emotions is valuable too, and yes men are more than capable of that.
Aren’t you gay? (No offense).

In my experience as a 30-something guy who has been around the world all young women are turned on by men who are confident, strong, and charming. They might want to be friends with guys that aren’t those things but they aren’t sexually attracted to them.

Of course “compatibility” is important but that is somewhat overrated as most men and women are fairly compatible to begin with. I like to focus on “chemistry” instead.

Generally agree with you on confidence but here’s the thing: confidence is something you either have or you don’t. Being confident and failing sometimes is still far better than lacking confidence.

I think Guy has a flawed view of man based on the modern definition of manliness. Our ancient ancestors weren’t like that.
If anything ancient men were a more extreme version of my description.