Young American Men and Eastern Orthodoxy

[Sardines]

"Her research shows that the reason fewer men are enrolling in veterinary school boils down to one factor: the number of women in the classroom."

I would think there are other reasons too. The shift towards more females in Veterinary industry is due to huge discrepancies in pay and difference in work load when working in small and large animal fields. 50-60 years ago, most vets were ending in large animal field - working with cows, horses, pigs etc - it was mostly manly profession, not too many females wanted to deal with large animals. Pet industry boom resulted in much bigger demand of small animal clinics and suddenly working with dogs, cats or rabbits in a nicely set up indoor clinic became much more attractive option then doing rectal exams or C sections on cows in -20C weather. Plus pay is much better.
In 1970 only 35% of vet graduates work in small animal clinics. 1990 already 63%, 2000 - 75%. Can't find data for 2020 for example but the trend almost matching male to female ratio.

Taking pets in for checkups and paying for expensive surgeries is a thing now. 40 years ago if the cat got sick you generally just wished for the best and then maybe it died. Today you rush it to the vet urgent care at 2am, get a diagnosis that includes the need for a $6000 surgery and the animal is in the OR the next morning.

I love my pets (cats) but if the vet told me one needed a $1000 plus surgery then it was just snowflakes time to go and that's the end of that story.

 

[LogGrad98]

In a country of over 330 million, how many of these people do you think there are? How many people would you estimate have been able to use religion to become a multimillionaire and fly on private jets? A significant percentage?

Enough to cause significant damage to their parishioners. Even one mother who chooses paying her priest over her children is too many. Sheisters exist on the backs of the poor, and should be eradicated, regardless of the robes or magic underwear they wear.

If you want a real shock Google "lds leaders protecting child predators" and go down a few pages. Then Google "child molester second anointing". To those of you not connected to the lds church the second anointing is a ritual by which the prophet absolves one of all sin and makes their "calling and election" sure, meaning no matter what else they do in this life they get straight into heaven.

What a ****ing racket.

 

[LogGrad98]

Taking pets in for checkups and paying for expensive surgeries is a thing now. 40 years ago if the cat got sick you generally just wished for the best and then maybe it died. Today you rush it to the vet urgent care at 2am, get a diagnosis that includes the need for a $6000 surgery and the animal is in the OR the next morning.

I love my pets (cats) but if the vet told me one needed a $1000 plus surgery then it was just snowflakes time to go and that's the end of that story.

We paid $1200 for an emergency c-section for our dog who was almost 3 days past due when even a day or 2 can kill a small dog and all the puppies. One of those puppies belongs to our son now and three mother lived with us for a decade after that surgery which was amazing. For many people pets are their children considering how many people choose to not have children now compared to previous generations. So they'll spend the money pretty much no differently than you would for your child.

 

[Sardines]

We paid $1200 for an emergency c-section for our dog who was almost 3 days past due when even a day or 2 can kill a small dog and all the puppies. One of those puppies belongs to our son now and three mother lived with us for a decade after that surgery which was amazing. For many people pets are their children considering how many people choose to not have children now compared to previous generations. So they'll spend the money pretty much no differently than you would for your child.

I understand it and don't think people are wrong for doing it. I really do care about my cats but I know pets come and go. I've had a few cats for more than 20 years, but that's as much as you're going to get with your cat, a lot less usually for a dog.

 

[LogGrad98]

I understand it and don't think people are wrong for doing it. I really do care about my cats but I know pets come and go. I've had a few cats for more than 20 years, but that's as much as you're going to get with your cat, a lot less usually for a dog.

Well, when you have a dozen cats who notices when one or two aren't there one day, or swap out with other cats around the neighborhood?

 

[Sardines]

Well, when you have a dozen cats who notices when one or two aren't there one day, or swap out with other cats around the neighborhood?

I've never had more than two cats at a time. Usually one.

I'd have dogs except they **** too big. I don't want to deal with that.

 

[LogGrad98]

I've never had more than two cats at a time. Usually one.

I'd have dogs except they **** too big. I don't want to deal with that.

Yeah but they **** outside and don't expect you to clean up after them like a diva. Take them to your neighbor's house and you don't have to deal with ***** in your yard either! It's a win-win, you know, for me!

 

[Rubashov]

Enough to cause significant damage to their parishioners. Even one mother who chooses paying her priest over her children is too many. Sheisters exist on the backs of the poor, and should be eradicated, regardless of the robes or magic underwear they wear.

If you want a real shock Google "lds leaders protecting child predators" and go down a few pages. Then Google "child molester second anointing". To those of you not connected to the lds church the second anointing is a ritual by which the prophet absolves one of all sin and makes their "calling and election" sure, meaning no matter what else they do in this life they get straight into heaven.

What a ****ing racket.

The filthy evangelical Christian right has been making inroads here, I think what is so repulsive about it is the worship of money above all. Funnily enough these churches have significant links to right wing politicians and child sex rings.

Now I openly admit I'm hostile to organised religion, for the first time in my lifetime there is actually a religious leader I admire in pope Francis. Who does he advocate for? The wealthy? the powerful? No he advocates for the poor, the powerless, the oppressed, he is the first Christian leader who I have ever seen speak about what the bible and Christian faith is supposed to be about.

 

[Red]

Did he words it that way because he's a troll. He knows exactly what he said and why. To get a rise out of you so he can chuckle from pwning you. That's it.

We’ve displayed enough animosity toward one another, at times, I can’t be surprised if his first thought about this thread were “what’s Red up to?” I guess you could say he assumes I’m trolling him, because he knows he’s a troll, and no more than a troll, so his immediate reaction is suspicion of my motives. But I believe he believes most of what he posts. The trolling might be a motive, but within the context of his own world view, which I believe he’s honest about in expressing that world view..

Anyway, I just see that there are issues involving the role of men and women in our current moment, in America. It’s one of those broad upheavals that are very difficult to see clearly, because it’s always well nigh impossible to extract oneself from one’s own worldview, esp. when it seems to be under threat.

The young men profiled in that piece don’t represent 100% of young American men, but their concerns, which would not be my concerns, (I’m not a product or exponent of “toxic masculinity”), must reflect some truth about some American men. And when I see how very, very, very different I am from men concerned with threats to their masculinity, and that, in contrast, there are millions of men like me, I perceive that “what is a man” is actually an issue in our current moment. That seems like an interesting cultural conundrum.

 

[Red]

Somewhere along the line, being masculine became bad, toxic, undesirable. That drive for masculinity is hardwired. It is normal. I remember moving some hideously heavy piece of furniture with my brother-in-law and a friend. My 3 year old son rushed in to help us because in his mind that is what the men did. No one told him to do that, and I was afraid he'd get crushed if one of us lost our grip but after we moved it I high-fived him anyway. Unlike far too much of society, I am not going to discourage the behavior in my own kid. I do not think masculinity is toxic.

Completely understandable and easily relatable.

 

[olden_undercover]

I don't agree at all. I think what is considered "toxic masculinity" is entirely subjective. Your line of distinction is not everyone's line of distinction, and vague lines means there is no way to defend any masculine trait against a charge of being toxic masculinity. The entire concept is to create a hostile environment. The college enrollment statistics demonstrate how effective the tactic is.

Well, sure-- there's subjectivity in everything. That doesn't mean some behaviors-- I'm not talking about traits-- aren't universally reprehensible, despite the insistence by some confused and angry individuals to defend and justify them. I think of Andrew Tate as a pretty clear example of someone behaving in a toxic manner, for example, and he makes clear claims that he's some kind of template for what masculinity ought to be. I wouldn't want my sons following his example. Does his massive following mean I'm wrong and he doesn't represent a toxic form of masculinity?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Does his massive following mean I'm wrong and he doesn't represent a toxic form of masculinity?

The lack of any societal correlation is where I think you run off the tracks. You are alleging the hyper-masculine character, and it is a character, played by Andrew Tate is toxic. Fine. Show me the societal effects. Show me that Andrew Tate starts doing toxic thing on date ‘X’ and you can see on date ‘X’ that society measurably changes in response. The term ‘toxic’ doesn’t mean thing you disagree with or don’t like. It means poison, so show me the direct effects on society of the poison or I’m doubting it is a poison at all.

I am more than happy to show that use of the term “toxic masculinity” strongly correlates with social unrest. Vilifying masculinity destabilizes society. The more it is vilified, the less stable society gets. Vilification peaked about the time of the BLM riots. I believe it is the vilification through means such as labeling things as “toxic masculinity” that is the societal toxin and I strongly oppose your defense of it.

 

[Sardines]

Andrew Tate is hyper masculine?

Masculine means something different to me than it does for others, apparently.

I don't consider chinless weasels with daddy issues to be masculine.

 

[olden_undercover]

The lack of any societal correlation is where I think you run off the tracks. You are alleging the hyper-masculine character, and it is a character, played by Andrew Tate is toxic. Fine. Show me the societal effects. Show me that Andrew Tate starts doing toxic thing on date ‘X’ and you can see on date ‘X’ that society measurably changes in response. The term ‘toxic’ doesn’t mean thing you disagree with or don’t like. It means poison, so show me the direct effects on society of the poison or I’m doubting it is a poison at all.

I am more than happy to show that use of the term “toxic masculinity” strongly correlates with social unrest. Vilifying masculinity destabilizes society. The more it is vilified, the less stable society gets. Vilification peaked about the time of the BLM riots. I believe it is the vilification through means such as labeling things as “toxic masculinity” that is the societal toxin and I strongly oppose your defense of it.

View attachment 17717

Yeah, and you don't have to like it. That's fine. It doesn't make it less of a reality that certain behaviors are universally reprehensible. I think it's the current, popular label of 'toxic masculinity' that's hanging you up. Fine. Let's use other words. How about 'misogyny'? Do I need to demonstrate on a trendline that misogyny is a social problem, or do you concur with that wild assertion? Homophobia as a social ill could be demonstrated with data, if you like, but I suspect you'd minimize its impact. 'Bullying' is a term synonymous with the concept of toxic masculinity. Is that just boys being boys, or is it a behavior that you would help your own son(s) understand to be unacceptable, to grow through, and not to be an expression of healthy masculinity? These are all synonymous with what is labeled 'toxic masculinity'. I get the sense you hear the term as a blanket criticism of masculinity, and I'm don't agree that it is.

(I'm not all that interested in going down the rabbit hole you're framing up with this graph, incidentally. You're going to try and show causation-- although I'm curious what data point you're going to use to represent social stability/unrest-- and I'm going to argue you're using some logical fallacies or other to try and prove a point. You'll disagree with that, and the circle goes round and round. That's good enough for me. We're allowed our opinions.)

For the record, I do respect you. A lot. You're a valuable contributor to this forum, for what my opinion is worth to you, if for no other reason than you obstruct what might otherwise be an echo chamber, and with compelling arguments. Most of us disagree with them on principle, but they're compelling nonetheless. I really appreciate that.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yeah, and you don't have to like it. That's fine. It doesn't make it less of a reality that certain behaviors are universally reprehensible. I think it's the current, popular label of 'toxic masculinity' that's hanging you up. Fine. Let's use other words. How about 'misogyny'? Do I need to demonstrate on a trendline that misogyny is a social problem, or do you concur with that wild assertion? Homophobia as a social ill could be demonstrated with data, if you like, but I suspect you'd minimize its impact. 'Bullying' is a term synonymous with the concept of toxic masculinity. Is that just boys being boys, or is it a behavior that you would help your own son(s) understand to be unacceptable, to grow through, and not to be an expression of healthy masculinity? These are all synonymous with what is labeled 'toxic masculinity'. I get the sense you hear the term as a blanket criticism of masculinity, and I'm don't agree that it is.

(I'm not all that interested in going down the rabbit hole you're framing up with this graph, incidentally. You're going to try and show causation-- although I'm curious what data point you're going to use to represent social stability/unrest-- and I'm going to argue you're using some logical fallacies or other to try and prove a point. You'll disagree with that, and the circle goes round and round. That's good enough for me. We're allowed our opinions.)

For the record, I do respect you. A lot. You're a valuable contributor to this forum, for what my opinion is worth to you, if for no other reason than you obstruct what might otherwise be an echo chamber, and with compelling arguments. Most of us disagree with them on principle, but they're compelling nonetheless. I really appreciate that.

Great post except for the last paragraph. Dude's just a well-spoken troll

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Do I need to demonstrate on a trendline that misogyny is a social problem

Yes. That is how you determine what is or is not actually a problem for society. Misogyny is a great example of the perils of taking pronouncements of what constitutes a social problem on faith alone. By nearly every measure, there is less misogyny in American society now than there was 30 years ago, yet women on average are less happy, more likely to be on anti-depressants, less likely to starting families, and a host of other metrics indicating a less healthy society. Most things that are considered misogyny are unwelcome pressure to conform to gender roles, but is that pressure to conform a net positive or net negative for the health of the whole of society? If you say misogyny is a social problem then show your work. I do not think the statement is beyond question in the way you are presenting it.

'Bullying' is a term synonymous with the concept of toxic masculinity. Is that just boys being boys, or is it a behavior that you would help your own son(s) understand to be unacceptable, to grow through, and not to be an expression of healthy masculinity?

Bullying is a combination of unwelcome pressure to conform and the establishment of hierarchy, which is necessary in every functional society. It isn't a fun process and I feel for any kid going through it, but I'm not convinced removing it entirely either can be done or that it should be done.

For the record, I do respect you. A lot. You're a valuable contributor to this forum, for what my opinion is worth to you, if for no other reason than you obstruct what might otherwise be an echo chamber, and with compelling arguments. Most of us disagree with them on principle, but they're compelling nonetheless. I really appreciate that.

Thank you. That is very kind to say. You are a class act.