APA: 'Traditional Masculinity' Is Harmful to Boys, Men

Jul 2016
6,038
4,942
BAN THE TROLL!!!!
You sure as HELL did, you jerk. You said I posted about jerking off to nude photos of the First Lady. That's a LIE. I posted about COLLEGE BOYS jerking off to nude photos of the First Lady.

Why don't you go jerk off yourself, jerk?
Be careful my friend...

You don't want to be flamed into a temp ban. That seems to be all the rage around here.
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
53,812
40,333
Ohio
So would the founding fathers be considered "traditionally masculine" in anyone's view? Powdered wigs & stockings, and little to no manual labor in their lives due to slavery. Another problem I have with this hard working man image is that until the last 100 years or so, the US was a largely an agrarian society where women worked just as hard if not harder (adding household chores & child rearing into the mix) as the men.

I think what bothers me most about this is the idea that men "traditionally" have earned their bosshood status by virtue of performing tasks that are physically more challenging.

Since the beginning of time people have struggled to decrease the amount of physical labor necessary to survive. So here we are with machines doing the bulk of the hard work, and some of us feel threatened by the nerds and intellectuals who made all our lives easier.
 

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
94,017
31,792
Pittsburgh, PA
So would the founding fathers be considered "traditionally masculine" in anyone's view? Powdered wigs & stockings, and little to no manual labor in their lives due to slavery. Another problem I have with this hard working man image is that until the last 100 years or so, the US was a largely an agrarian society where women worked just as hard if not harder (adding household chores & child rearing into the mix) as the men.

I think what bothers me most about this is the idea that men "traditionally" have earned their bosshood status by virtue of performing tasks that are physically more challenging.

Since the beginning of time people have struggled to decrease the amount of physical labor necessary to survive. So here we are with machines doing the bulk of the hard work, and some of us feel threatened by the nerds and intellectuals who made all our lives easier.
It's the other way around. The so called intellectuals are threatened by the notion of traditional masculinity. Hence we get statements like...“Traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
53,812
40,333
Ohio
It's the other way around. The so called intellectuals are threatened by the notion of traditional masculinity. Hence we get statements like...“Traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”
I get the feeling their definition of traditional masculinity is based on either primitive societies or cowboy movies and sports. Gender roles change according to society's needs at any given time. And the views of women as subservient are more of a bible thing than anything else. Modern society is becoming such that a warrior mentality shouldn't be needed as proven by drones, etc.

I'm inclined to think the whole concept is just a ruse to elicit self sacrifice from the have nots by encouraging a prideful identity related to war and hard labor.
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,530
Massachusetts
Why would I work that hard, employ all those people if you are going to take most of my money for doing so?
I have no idea whether you would. It's conceivable you have abnormal psychology and would not. But we know, from practical experience, that the top bracket can be as high as 90% and people will continue to work hard. I think there are two keys to understanding why:

(1) At a certain level of wealth, people are no longer working in order to be able to buy stuff for the sake of those things in themselves. For example, there's no real difference in utility between buying a 60-foot yacht and buying a 70-foot yacht. Instead, it's more about the psychological rewards. Partly that's having more than the next guy. But whether that means you have a 70 foot yacht and he as a 60 footer, or you have a 60 footer and he's got a 50 footer doesn't matter at all. It's the relative prestige that matters, and people will work for that. So as long as tax policy is proportionally impacting you and your peers the same, it doesn't really matter where effective rates are, within reason: the psychological "hit" is still there for the taking, in terms of being one up on the next guy, and people will work for that. The other aspect of this is the idea of being a big shot on the job. People get a thrill out of telling others how many folks they employ.... hell, you get a kick out of telling me how many people you'd like me to think you employ, so you understand the psychological hit I'm talking about. Whether you're taking home $250K or $150K, your bragging rights will be the same, so long as there's a proportional reduction for your peers as well.

(2) The income structure goes nearly vertical as you move up it. Thus, the additional gain for every little extra bit of effort gets exponentially larger and larger the higher up the chain you go. And that will remain the case for all but the most extreme progressive tax situations. For example, say I'm at the 50th percentile, and I bust my ass to move past 9 percent of the total population, such that I'm now at the 59th percentile. Well, then, in terms of personal income, that extra effort moved me from $27,000 per year to $34,500. My income rose $7,500, or 28%, in exchange for that effort. Now say, instead, I'm at the 90th percentile, and I bust my ass to move past 9 percent of the total population, such that I'm at the 99th percentile. My extra effort moved me past the exact same number of people. However, it also moved me from $87,000 of personal income to $310,000. That extra effort was worth $223,000 to me, or 256%. Now, even if you lay a progressive tax on top of that, you'll see it would have to be very extreme for it to counteract the impact of the income structure being so close to vertical at the high end. For example, if people at the 59th percentile paid no taxes, such that they got the whole 28% improvement, after tax, from moving past 9 percent of the population, then people at the 99th percentile would need to pay 89.08% tax on the added income, just to bring their after-tax improvement down to 28%. [the $223,000 gain minus 89.08% is $24,352 which is 28% of $87,000.] So, if the guy at the 99th percentile is "only" paying 70% on that gain, he actually is seeing a much larger after-tax percentage gain for having moved past 9 percent of the population than is the 59th percentile guy is for making a move of exactly the same size. If you're worried about people having insufficient incentive to make the extra effort, then unless we're in the range of 90 percent taxation on top incomes, you needn't worry about the rich guys. Instead, worry about the ones lower on the ladder, where even a fairly low tax rate can reduce the gain for moving a bit ahead to a negligible percent.

Also, taxes can actually incentivize work. Take my own case. I'm going to retire as soon as I have enough money to live at a certain level through retirement. Let's say to get there I need $2 million in my retirement funds and right now I have $1 million. Well then, I can quit once I've added $1 million. So, say I'm contributing $100,000 per year. Ignoring inflation and return on investment, for easy math, that's ten years until I retire. What happens if I get a tax cut that boosts my after-tax incomes such that I can now put away $125,000 per year. Well, then I can retire in eight years. Thus, I work 20% less than I would have if my taxes hadn't been cut.
 
Last edited:
Likes: raj

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
50,857
37,311
Pennsylvania, USA
Djinn, why do you even have this joker as a moderator on this forum? He is the most insulting moderator, and I am certainly not the only poster who has made this observation.
Because he does a damn good job in the mod room. And while Macduff himself would admit to being a bit abrasive at times, we're not going to act because a moderator called you "a bore."

If you wish to discuss this further, reach out to me (and/or the other CMs) via PM.
 
Sep 2017
5,469
6,530
Massachusetts
No dumb dumb, you claimed to have a 155 iq.
I indicated what my IQ score was on particular IQ tests, as well as providing what my scores were on some other tests. If you prefer some other measure of IQ, that's fine. Maybe, according to them, I'm lower (or higher.)

I noted EInstiens was 160
According to what? As far as I know, he never took an IQ test. In the past, I did a fair amount of reading about psychometric testing, and my recollection is that the purported IQs listed for various historical figures are nearly all estimates based on their careers, rather than the result of any actual test.

Here's something to consider. An IQ of 160, using the Stanford-Binet scale, puts someone at about the 99.991% level. That sounds great, obviously. But it's really just 1 in every 11,111 people. In a population as large as the US (328 million), that means you'd have about 30,000 people whose IQs are as high as Einstein's or higher. Assuming you only get to know about three hundred people well in a lifetime, the chances of getting to know one of them is small (if you run in average social circles). But if you meet an average of one new person per day during your adult life, you'd expect to meet two people with IQs that high or higher during your lifetime (again, assuming random social circles). If you're an older guy, chances are you already have met someone at that level.

Since Einstein was a once-per-century intellect, my take on it is that either he had a much higher IQ than 160, or IQ isn't a very good measure of brain power at the extremes.

Please post something official showing your lofty iq
I'm trying to think of something that would not compromise my privacy. You never know what wackos are out there. Do you know anyone in the Triple Nine Society? If so, you could ask that person for some information that only group members would have access to (e.g., something behind the website's wall), and I can answer that. Of course, that only requires a 99.9% IQ, which is quite a bit lower than 155, but it'll show I'm in the ballpark. I also have copies of my SATs, GREs, GMATs, and LSATs buried somewhere, that I could post, after blocking out personal info, and those would all also show a rarity well above the 99.9th percentile. The SAT and GRE, at least, have high correlation with IQ tests. But I suspect you'd just assume they were forged or copied from elsewhere.