Sneak Preview: Presenting the Pandora meme.
You forgot the pitchfork.
What exactly do we mean by “sensitivity”? What is a “sensitive” man? This, I believe, is highly misunderstood.
There is sensitive as in: easily hurt, prone to emotion at the slightest trigger.
Then there is sensitive as in: being able to detect, or sense, the feelings, thoughts, and needs of others, and being stirred to respond to them.
A man who is sensitive in the former sense might be seen to wine and complain about their hurt feelings, asking for free handouts and Pandora suggests. A man who is sensitive in the latter sense might be seen to do just the opposite, to respond to the needs and emotions of others.
This paleo-masculine hatred of sensitivity, as you call it, is, I think, geared towards the former. “Real men”, as they say, don’t like a pussy (and I think most women don’t either). But I question whether a man who is sensitive to the needs of others, and is emotionally moved to empathize with them, is equally seen as a pussy and hated by paleo-masculinity. I suppose a man who always cries at sappy movies, which can happen from being too sensitive to the needs of others, will look like a pussy, but that to me seems more like a man who is overly reactive emotionally (so sensitive in both senses), which is subtly different from being aware of the feelings and needs of others. You can intuit how another is feeling and what their needs are, and feel enough compassion to help the other to meet those needs without getting all blubbery and emotional about it. ← Does that qualify for a “real man” who somehow manages to be “sensitive” at the same time?
And we are right back to compassion - the need to offload some of the responsibility, or in your case, to take some of the credit. If the other’s true need is to be self reliant, taking on some of that responsibility for other would defeat the purpose, wouldn’t it?
You seem like the type of person who wants to reinforce the view that there is no such thing as a truly altruistic person, that even the most seemingly selfless acts are really done for selfish reasons. I’m sure this works to give you the sense that you’re a tough cookie and quite resilient in the face of such a bleak harsh world.
What would a truly selfless act look like to you?
Do I want some of the credit for helping someone through tough times? Sure, that would be nice. I could think of myself as the hero and all that. ← Very enticing!
The question I’m asking is: does that make me a pussy?
“Real man” is a paleo-masculine invention. “Real man”, from the point of view of paleo-masculinity, is a selfish man who is preoccupied with survival (or glory.) One should take care not to come to a premature, and incorrect, conclusion that such a man lacks empathy. He does not. However, he does lack universal empathy. In other words, his empathy is restricted to his in-group (e.g. his family, his neighbourhood, his town, his nation, his ethnicity, his species, etc.)
A sensitive man is otherwise known as honorable man. A honorable man is a man who can sense the subtlest forms of violence and then retaliate against them. Such acts are often described as “over-sensitive” by paleo-masculine types, since paleo-masculine types are considerably desensitized to violence (since too much sensitivity is detrimental to achieving their primitive ends.)
The fundamental difference between the two types lies in the purpose they assign to their lives. Paleo-masculine types strive for survival or glory. Honorable types strive for peace (which is the elimination of violence.)
There is nothing wrong with “being easily hurt” or “being prone to emotion at the slightest trigger”. It is true that such states are inferior to composure – though, one has to note, not every state of composure is superior – but that does not mean we should treat such people with violence (which is what paleo-masculine types, such as Pandora, do when they come in contact with them – they tell them to “just get over it”.)
We punish concrete acts of violence. Being emotionally overwhelmed is in itself not a violence. It is only when it converts to a concrete act of violence that we punish it.
Of course, being emotionally overwhelmed puts you at the risk of loss of self-control, and a loss of self-control puts you at the risk of commiting violence. But the potential alone is not enough to justify punishment.
Quite simply, we punish barbarism. Paleo-masculine types, on the other hand, are narcissists who punish everything that they consider below them (and many times what they consider below them is not even below them.)
Here’s a paleo-masculine father mocking his daughter (as well as filming it and then posting it on YouTube):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td8NDwFDmp8[/youtube]
Such a sight would motivate every honorable individual to beat the fuck out of this man, as well as everyone in the comment section who is supporting him.
That’s honor.
Yeah, they tend to look at me with suspicious eyes…
I believe the temperature was seventeen degrees that day.
You too? I think everyone is looked at suspiciously these days, even if there’s nothing suspicious about them because even that becomes suspicious to the paranoid.
No such thing as spring or autumn where I live.
In an era of social mistrust and deception…
As John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester pointed out:
I dared to put that to the test and found him to be right. Of course, that didn’t stop me from continuing on with it anyway and smashing those knaves into the ground. Strong precedent must be set, in my opinion. Everyone loves an honorable man, of course, just not when that honorable man disagrees with them and puts them in their place.
In an era of deception, stupidity, and ignorance rational thought is a radical act.
To add something to my post from the previous page:
According to paleo-masculinity, people must earn their right – they must deserve – to live. They need to prove themselves. This is “guilty until proven innocent” way of thinking. This is the source of all narcissism.
My way of thinking is the opposite. For me, people are “innocent until proven guilty”. Noone has to earn their right to live. Noone has to prove themselves. The only thing that I demand of people is to remain innocent.
Paleo-masculine types are cynics. They are too suspicious of other people’s motives. Apparently, this is because of their own egoistic nature. They find it hard to believe that people can be any other way.
What’s wrong with “free handouts”? What’s wrong with asking for help? There is nothing wrong about it.
That you may end up funding evil is a separate concern.
It’s like giving street beggars money. Do you think you’re really helping them?
I don’t know where this is coming from. Misplaced jealousy? There is nothing ‘tough cookie’ about it, quite the opposite.
Don’t know. I haven’t met one.
Just someone with low self-worth, whose own achievements/failures are not fully his own, because he owes and is owed.
Like in the Oscar acceptance speeches - it’s not me, it’s all thanks to You!
The lesson - In matters of (real) survival, the true road to success is made thanks to others:
youtube.com/watch?v=ncgFQAISaGo
No, I am worried like with most rats all the feces deposits you leave in your tracks whenever your presence is around.
Your asinine viewpoints on my personal life is amusing. Talk about clueless.
Typical woman reduced to insults because she cannot fashion a rational or intelligent argument on her own. Pretty funny actually.
I’m sensing some serious denial at the end of that post where I think it is safe to assume you already are a recreational crack user. 
I am picturing you at home watching Little House On The Prairie with a crack pipe…