你关于男性化的问题似乎与我对你另外两篇文章的看法一致:厌女症和女性关怀。Men, whether particularly masculine or not so much,
感受到了来自女权运动和其他亲妇女势力的压力和压力。从公平和平等的角度来看，这被认为是一件好事。另一方面，它也可以被认为是侵蚀性的:唐纳德·j·特朗普(Donald J. Trump)登上总统宝座就是一个很好的例子。

不满的男性对特朗普的支持和支持不成比例。他发誓要为他在选举中的失败报仇，而这些人正兴高采烈地支持他。这是示范。And, I think
unhelpful. It encourages further erosion of democracy, in the sense of encouraging a revenge whch has no valid referrent: He lost the contest, fair and square. His insistence that it was rigged is , itself, a sham. But, obviously, brawny, masculline men may choose to feel differently and act on the feeling.
To use a part of my mantra, they are NOT ready to try harder, think better and cut the crap.

通情达理的人可能不同意。当然……

批判理论从来不是哲学，它目前的任何推断也不是哲学。他们是反白人的种族敌意，只对过度社会化、后宗教信仰的信仰者有价值，对他们来说，激进的左翼提供了反抗自己人格缺陷的手段。

It does not matter to them that their arguments are circular, their certainties self-proving, their justifications hypocritical self-deceptions. It does not matter that equality does not and cannot exist in Nature, and therefore in humanity, and that cause is a total waste of everybody’s time. It does not matter that there is no Marx Factor whirring away inside the human brain, cross-checking with flawless efficiency over the mountains and deserts and oceans to make quite sure that no one with white skin has evolved a difference above the neck or below the belt from someone with black or brown or yellow skin. It does not matter that being a man or a woman is not a personal choice because, y’know, you can’t choose your chromosomes. It does not matter that reproductively whole men and women, in whom the future of humanity is vested, are not equal to the reproductively disabled “letter people”. None of it matters because it’s religion. It’s all just a desperate, pathetically immature faith-rebellion in the maximally damaging cause of a relativistic universe voided of all annoyingly “white” and “masculine” absolutes like reality, facts, truth and, especially, inheritance. Would that these strange political animals had all been practising Christians after all. Then the most they could have done to save themselves would have been to go and prey in church every Sunday.

No. I do not understand. I have suggested readings for insight into this and other questions. Susan Jacoby and Steven Pinker are two of my favorites There are dozens others. I don't contend these public intellectuals are 100% right, only that they offer valuable perspectives. I figure I still have a lot to learn. Life is just too short. We just do the best we can, with what we've got and what we know...
Warmest Regards.

Sex and gender are two different things. Though we scientifically understand next to nothing about sexual orientation, we know something about gender and much more about sex. Most of us don't question our sex or gender, especially men, comfortable with their maleness and masculinity. Why should they? They are 'Real Men On Top' as Robin's forthcoming book is titled.

Here's why. There is no state or country where men outlive women. Being male kills men. Men are victims of crime at much higher rates than women as well. Men commit homicides nearly nine times as often as women. The stats go on and on.

There are biological reasons for this disparity, but social norms that don't support males through adulthood bring much pain and harm. That may seem odd to say men need support when they are the criminals and lottery winners with respect to wages and opportunity. Nevertheless, it is perhaps true. That men rarely are open and honest about their lives is further fodder for change.

The absolute best solution for the ills of masculinity is equal rights for women. Once we correct that wrong, we can genuinely share the childcare and parenting that perforce humanizes.

尽管男性气质和女性气质存在巨大差异，但女性和男性的相似之处多于不同之处。在认知上，两性之间的差异远远大于两性之间的差异。SARS 2可能逆转了女性在工作中的趋势。希望我们能纠正那艘船。男性的生命取决于它。

//www.f8r7.com/blog/what-makes-man

Hmm... I'm not sure I liked this show. Yet, just when I get heated Robin would say something reasonable. Overall I think there is too much here I disagree with to let this go without comment.

我看不到一条清晰的道路——这是我对任何职业哲学家的要求。清晰和方向……嗯。我不明白。Let me re-listen and write in a comment on this show, then come back and post it here.

I don't think this is going to be an easy edit. Robin is wrong on the science, the immutability of masculinity and femininity, and historical trajectory. This isn't going to be fun but maybe I am just not hearing this right.

有时候，至少对我来说，有些东西会从过去几年读过的一些记忆文本中浮现出来。我之前提到过朱利安·杰恩斯。他不像某些人那么有名，但他的两院制思想仍然困扰着我的意识，或者在我思考其他问题时刺激着我的神经。男子气概。从我很小的时候起，这就一直是让我恼火的地方。我想知道，拿不定主意是不是一种进退两难的局面?我隐约地意识到，男人对自己的看法非常全面。他们敏锐地意识到自己的公众形象，并希望把自己塑造成他们认为最好的形象。这在很大程度上取决于贵族身份:与谁在一起，在哪里，他们感到自在，“心安理得”。这本身并不是智力模糊的表现。 They just want to have somewhere to hang their hat. Or hunt turkeys.

就像杰恩斯的两院制男人一样，他们并不能真正做出自己的决定:他们选择一个最舒适的模板，并允许他们的态度和行为被所选择的群体塑造。
Philosophy of psychology? I think so. Others must decide for themselves. Turkeys are difficult prey.
如果你遵守规则的话。