Masculinity & Effeminatism have the same problem?

[Wolfeye]

Just had an insight & wanted to bring it up: Masculinity & the effeminate way that the West seems to generally embrace today seems to actually have the same problem. That problem is not focusing on dynamics. With masculinity, someone can more or less be a complete asshole & not be shit-canned in any sense of the word. With effeminate situations, it's basically the same thing, but aligned toward different stuff- they more or less prize anyone that can't handle themselves. With "masculines," it's the "jocks." With "effeminates," it's the "nerds."

None of these styles (at least in the West, so far as I know) really encompass what someone's actions amount to- it's all title-based!

I think the root of it is that previous generations were based in title & that put off the later generation of the 60s & 70s. These people, however, didn't embrace a meritocracy. They were so in love with themselves for being "better" & "smarter"- or simply younger. I remember well that they definitely seemed very pleased with themselves for being 35, when that age came around. There was no hearing out problems & then giving suggestions that were made in a state of humble self-consciousness. They weren't at all interested in what their "lessers" had to say most of the time & they very much lacked self-recrimination. There was basically no concept that they were anything other than infallible! And that's what they thought was worthy of an open ear? Sure, they'd SAY that they weren't perfect- but they'd never disdain their mistakes & stop making them!

The previous generation was, as far as I can tell, a bunch of rubes. They had good intentions at a lot of points & could have some self-criticism, but they would blindly follow title & ignore reality. If a parent was a bad parent, they'd simply say "they are that person's PARENT" as an argument against anything saying they were trashy & deserving of reciprocation. I know this because I've had arguments with people from that generation & that's the type of reasoning they'd have. They'd get screwed REAL easily, because they'd blindly defer to someone that they figured was smarter than them. They'd also trot off & do whatever the government (aka: "Santa Claus") said. Didn't matter if it was a bad idea or if they've had them before- they would just keep trusting them & usually still do.

The next one was so damn arrogant, I'm amazed that they even survived to this point. There was nearly NO self-recrimination & they would almost always have a small narcissistic rage when they were caught being a liar or a moron. They slit off from the ways of their forefathers in the good way & the bad way. This was, oddly enough, something that usually never applied to anyone but THEM. They would be right when they thought their parents were wrong & maybe had an attitude with them if they were acting badly, but their kids where wrong for doing the same with them- because they were their PARENTS! The same bullshit reasoning that they rejected when it was coming FROM their parents they applied TOWARD their children- apparently, only THEY should be able to counter bullshit information & everyone else should listen & adhere to it.

So, at the same time, they're more open-minded than the generation before them & more resistant to the idea that they could be wrong & of going by what happens (instead of what something's designated). The other thing about them is that they seemed to be utterly unwilling to fight against any kind of movement that would create a more inhospitable condition later- for them & the next generations. There's no conclusion that something was or is f***ed-up & that they don't support it- there's largely "defense attorney" stuff or victim-blaming. Sometimes it's too the point that contradicts reality!