@hoit

There are masculine and feminine emotions - the best evidence of this is reading literature from far before the modern era. For example in the Iliad men are showing as being wily, stubborn, hot head, genius, stoic and finally pathetic (in the character of Paris). All of the main characters that the reader is supposed to admire are indifferent to physical pain (hector, achilles, herakles, etc) but are highly susceptible to being wounded by friends or women

If you read the poem "If" by rudyard kipling you will see the display of similar emotions and a total indifference to pain.

Finally, read the poem Ulysseus - the poem is a desire to go on more adventures despite the weakness of the body.

Mkdern society tells us there are no masculine emotions - only feminine ones and tries to transmute feminine emotions onto men

@CainPrice @CainPrice I've noticed that men in homophobic cultures are more affectionate and touchy-feely. It's muslims who you'll see holding hands, hugging. Men appreciate boundaries because they allow deeper focus/less wasted energy. When you live somewhere anti male, pro gay, pro tranny, it can be difficult to tell when a guy is being friendly and warm or if he's vibing with you because he wants some dickplay. Men are at least as emotional and sensitive as women, but learning to guard your public displays will usually pay off, because displaying emotion is almost always used as an opportunity for someone to set up covert contracts. A man or woman who listens to you whine gains leverage over you: firstly, they can take advantage of your increased familiarity (it's hard to say no to a polite request from someone who just listened to you vent), and secondly, they have dirt on you which they can use for social attacks to punish you should you not comply with their wishes. Women can be stoic too, perhaps just not in as extreme situations as men can. But women have many more protections than men, and men simply learn that nothing postive comes from dramatic displays; in the best case they are ignored and they feel the cold sting of indifference, at worst they lose social status and display their vulnerabilities for their enemies. Stoicism is a practical tool, and it works great, but not matter how good you are, there is always the desire to be seen truthfully and be understood. If this drive isn't taken care of via thoroughly vetted and established friends/brothers, that's how you end up getting drunk and oversharing with a stranger or a woman, leaving you at their mercy.

It's difficult to parse what cultural changes are haphazard and which are slyly implemented by oligarch funded think tanks, but our society's destruction and devaluing of tradition seems like pretty low hanging fruit for those who wish to cripple the lower classes. Men cannot form trusted bonds without being tested and seeing if they can rely on eachother. People are too charming and good at lying, you just can't know unless you develop you own ability to employ shit tests safely AND intensely. It's hard to guage a man's trustworthiness to a satisfactory degree without potentially getting into a fight without the structure and unity which used to be offered by traditional rights of passages. Individualism is pushed just as hard and is just as destructive as opiods.

There was allegedly a time, back before things got modern, when men (at least in some cultures) were touchy-feely with each other in a non-gay way, cried about things, and were emotional and sensitive, and so on. These bonds of love between men were considered strong and manly. There was also allegedly a time when men were strong, stoic, didn't emote like women, handled their shit, only cried when it was extremely serious, and were masculine - completely different from women in the way they feel and process emotions. This individual strength was considered masculine.

The modern, libera/feminist viewpoint in 2019 is that when men act conventinoally masuline and fairly non-emotional, this is a farce. It's a fragile man pretending to be masculine by putting on a mask, when really, on the inside, he feels and emotes just like a woman. The idea is that "real men" cry, express feelings, and emote just like women and aren't afraid of beng open with their feelings, being vulnerable, etc. And any man who isn't this way and acts conventionally masculine is fragile and cowardly and probably afraid of other men calling him gay or something like that.

There is a conservative viewpoint (bordering on conspiracy-theory/paranoia among the more extreme fringes) that society feminizes men, either as a by-product of extreme liberalism or even intentionally as some kind of wicked social machination to control the world. That men are naturally conventionally masculine and more stoic/less emotional, but are fed shitty food and raised and taught nearly exculsively by women and fed liberal/feminist ideas their entire lives, to the point where they grow up wearing a modern-man mask and emoting like women.

Men are probably somewhere between the two extremes. The emotionless super-soldier and the scrawny bisexual feminist nu-male who cries if the breeze is too cold are extreme characatures. Men feel emotions, of course, and express their feelings in various ways. But we still feel them and process them differently than women do. But probably not actually in a robotic, ultra-stoic way.

Is the emotive man who's touchy-feely with other men in his tribe, that forms strong bonds of love with men and women and expresses himself emotionally without regret closer to the natural state of masculinity? Or is the individually strong, stoic, island to himself man who handles his business and processes his emotions inwardly closer to true manhood?