Being raised on pornography makes a lot of men angry. There is some conspiracy to never mention that it arouses great anger, esp. millions of men with natural chauvanism, religious background, mental illness, low iq, emotional unstable, violent etc. most smile through the pain of the self betrayal many feel. For sure it is a major cause of all kinds of behaviour on the news. Conspiracy of silence. Biggest csa scandal in human history and in plain sight for 20 years
Fear and anxiety are both very similar states to anger. Physiologically, they are practically identical. In fact, one of the biggest differences is the perception of power. If you're provoked and you think you have power in the situation, you get angry. If you're provoked and you don't think you have power, you get scared.
Your point about men being taught that showing vulnerability equaling weakness is a good one. Men do learn that early. In some ways, I think that becomes a reason for them to lean so heavily on anger. It feels safer.
Great topic and important work you're doing on the relationship between entitlement and anger! I can't help but question data asking men about their feelings of "anger" when most men are raised to suppress nuanced feelings (such as frustration, disappointment, irritated, annoyed, resentful, etc.) and call it "anger." People with higher EI would say "I'm disappointed" and a low EI person could feel the same but label it as "anger" because they believe that is the only socially-appropriate label.
*oh and its challenging to throw a powerful vertical fist punch, landing with the top two knuckles. thats why we see some buckling on the wrist in this photo
in wing chun we chain punch using vertical fist BUT we land it with the bottom three knuckles. the wrist doesnt buckle bc the bone alignment
boxing legend Jack Dempsey teaches this for boxing upper angle / vertical strikes too!
i trust it was just an aestetic choice. but i am compelled 🤓😂
I like the choice of image because men should work a heavy bag
we talk about men being minimized by forcing them to ignore there emotions. but society also shames anyone for having the ability to fight
(im not suggesting you have shames anyone for the ability to fight. im not an intellectual so im just trying to contribute from my thinking: on low t men in gyms always being angry)
Id say that its also minimizing men how society will shame them for being able & willing to defend us all. the ability to defend is a healthy part of a wholistic human being. and its more their job
to that end they should drink less beer and sleep more. to build healthy testosterone levels (testosterone replenishes during deep rem sleep. hops are an estrogen mimicker)
on average, anecdotally - low t men are the most violent at the mma gym. healthy t men are kind, quiet & able to converse reciprocally and respectfully
have testosterone. do punch things. do fight. and dont be angry. easy! i see it everyday
Regrettably, the research doesn't support the idea that "men should work a heavy bag" at least not for emotional wellness. That sort of catharsis only hurts when it comes to anger. It makes it worse and makes you more likely to become aggressive when angry.
Curious, why do you think men are minimized or shamed for being able or willing to fight? The opposite seems true to me.
maybe ur research doesnt. but ur research & observations are objectively based in a unserious liberal bias and not in reality
like when you point out men get mad more frequently than women. with no caveats for how women arent allowed to get angry
i wasnt saying that heavy bag is emotional therapy. thats a boy thought if ive beard one tho - that a heavy bag is catharisis lol. i was saying its being a man. to learn to defend. and thats why it should be encouraged. when people can follow their tao they are not as easy to anger
no men are not celebrated for being able to fight lol
nor am i
like do you live in a school playground?
if you mean in mma - yes athletes of all sports are celebrated for their skills & dedication. youd also are ignoring wmma then though. thats ur bias not the worlds
i would actually suggest you might need to get more sleep and start working a heavy bag - with a proper form or youll break
After rereading this article a few times, this seems highly subjective and relies on comparing men's feelings to women's feelings as if the feminine response is the default baseline for people in general.
It is subjective in that it's my interpretation of a lot of data, but that doesn't make my conclusions incorrect.
People regularly push back on research findings when they don't like them, but there's a lot of evidence here to say that men feel entitled and that it leads to anger. Unless you can find evidence to the contrary, we probably shouldn't ignore this conclusion.
Conclusions based on subjective "research" are simply biased speculation. Men have more testosterone & thus more angry thoughts than women. Makes me think of Camille Paglia's quip that "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper." But in your world, as long as men don't act more like women, men are angry & need fixed. Focus on Jack the Ripper & ignore the rest.
All research is subjective. All research has biases baked in. Discounting research because of those biases or that subjectivity is dangerous. Instead, we need to acknowledge the bias, look at the full body of research on the subject, and interpret it within the broader context. In this case, there’s quite a bit of evidence to support the notion of male entitlement and very little to suggest the contrary.
Qualitative research is what you're referring to & yes, it's highly subjective, to the point that the info gleaned is hardly considered actual data. I did link your article in my article today
How "controls for that by simply asking- after defining anger", on the previous "Conventional wisdom has long held that men and women got angry at the same frequency but men tended to express it outwardly and women tended to suppress it or better control it" controls for different outwardly violence in males versus different expressions in women?, including "suppress it or better control it"?
Anger and its expressions are disjointed in females vs males, how exactly?, specially after attempting defining it per the researchers belief, not fact, what anger is?. Where is the control for defining something to someone?. How does one do that?
So females and males expressing anger outwardly differently is controlled how exactly?
So females and males expressing anger suppressing it or better controlling it is controlled how exactly?
It might seem irrational or absurd, but truly it is not to my thinking, and my thinking is not a mere opinion nor a belief.
Let me give a fantasy example: if grass and flowers were exactly angry the same amount of time, would you measure by flower counts or by lack of flower counts?. In both grass and flowers nonetheless to compare them?.
Where is the true control for female vs male forms of expression before measuring anything?, specially anger.
Particularly after defining something at them, not for them?.
Did the researchers controlled for sudden exhibition of discordant definitions?, how exactly one does that?.
They measured such effect in ALL research subjects?, to be sure it did not biased things considering by previous supposition differences in male vs females expressions of mere anger, as frequency, nonetheless, needing, apparently to be explained otherwise differently as previously believed?
What´s the basis for measuring "frequency" when 2 categories most likely express the pretending to be measured differently by supposition?, not by hypothesis. Sounds like comparing flowering among grass and flowers.
How “how often would you estimate you become angry", a self reported meassurement after defining anger controls for anything?
Is that a synecdoche, a straw person fallacy, an irrelevance fallacy or faker appeal to faker authority, among others?
"That same dataset finds that men are suffering from more anger-related consequences than women", is that a measuring tool bias, or trully trully is a fact?.
Relevant I think to my previous questions...
How does finding #2 actually measured suffering?, with a weighting scale?, a ruler? or mere rhetoric which by its essence is not physical, not material and obviously to me not objective?
Do you believe in subjective or intersubjective objective measurements?, do the researchers of the study you are apparently reviewing believe so?
---How was such believe or nay controlled for to being with?---
At least on researchers...
Now, for point #3 the same applies.
I am not saying I don´t believe women are less angry, I do believe that, what I am questioning is if such belief proffered by you and perhaps, assuming, the research you are summing up, can be called an opinion or a fact:
And not called a mere belief, valuable as it is for me that women are way better than males... most of the time... but that´s a belief, not an opinion, and certailny from what I read here not a fact.
Being raised on pornography makes a lot of men angry. There is some conspiracy to never mention that it arouses great anger, esp. millions of men with natural chauvanism, religious background, mental illness, low iq, emotional unstable, violent etc. most smile through the pain of the self betrayal many feel. For sure it is a major cause of all kinds of behaviour on the news. Conspiracy of silence. Biggest csa scandal in human history and in plain sight for 20 years
Where does fear and anxiety factor in? What about men being taught that showing vulnerability equals weakness as a contributing factor?
Fear and anxiety are both very similar states to anger. Physiologically, they are practically identical. In fact, one of the biggest differences is the perception of power. If you're provoked and you think you have power in the situation, you get angry. If you're provoked and you don't think you have power, you get scared.
Your point about men being taught that showing vulnerability equaling weakness is a good one. Men do learn that early. In some ways, I think that becomes a reason for them to lean so heavily on anger. It feels safer.
Thank you for your insight.
Great topic and important work you're doing on the relationship between entitlement and anger! I can't help but question data asking men about their feelings of "anger" when most men are raised to suppress nuanced feelings (such as frustration, disappointment, irritated, annoyed, resentful, etc.) and call it "anger." People with higher EI would say "I'm disappointed" and a low EI person could feel the same but label it as "anger" because they believe that is the only socially-appropriate label.
Four years of data is enough to send me to the wall!
*oh and its challenging to throw a powerful vertical fist punch, landing with the top two knuckles. thats why we see some buckling on the wrist in this photo
in wing chun we chain punch using vertical fist BUT we land it with the bottom three knuckles. the wrist doesnt buckle bc the bone alignment
boxing legend Jack Dempsey teaches this for boxing upper angle / vertical strikes too!
i trust it was just an aestetic choice. but i am compelled 🤓😂
I like the choice of image because men should work a heavy bag
we talk about men being minimized by forcing them to ignore there emotions. but society also shames anyone for having the ability to fight
(im not suggesting you have shames anyone for the ability to fight. im not an intellectual so im just trying to contribute from my thinking: on low t men in gyms always being angry)
Id say that its also minimizing men how society will shame them for being able & willing to defend us all. the ability to defend is a healthy part of a wholistic human being. and its more their job
to that end they should drink less beer and sleep more. to build healthy testosterone levels (testosterone replenishes during deep rem sleep. hops are an estrogen mimicker)
on average, anecdotally - low t men are the most violent at the mma gym. healthy t men are kind, quiet & able to converse reciprocally and respectfully
have testosterone. do punch things. do fight. and dont be angry. easy! i see it everyday
Regrettably, the research doesn't support the idea that "men should work a heavy bag" at least not for emotional wellness. That sort of catharsis only hurts when it comes to anger. It makes it worse and makes you more likely to become aggressive when angry.
Curious, why do you think men are minimized or shamed for being able or willing to fight? The opposite seems true to me.
maybe ur research doesnt. but ur research & observations are objectively based in a unserious liberal bias and not in reality
like when you point out men get mad more frequently than women. with no caveats for how women arent allowed to get angry
i wasnt saying that heavy bag is emotional therapy. thats a boy thought if ive beard one tho - that a heavy bag is catharisis lol. i was saying its being a man. to learn to defend. and thats why it should be encouraged. when people can follow their tao they are not as easy to anger
no men are not celebrated for being able to fight lol
nor am i
like do you live in a school playground?
if you mean in mma - yes athletes of all sports are celebrated for their skills & dedication. youd also are ignoring wmma then though. thats ur bias not the worlds
i would actually suggest you might need to get more sleep and start working a heavy bag - with a proper form or youll break
After rereading this article a few times, this seems highly subjective and relies on comparing men's feelings to women's feelings as if the feminine response is the default baseline for people in general.
It is subjective in that it's my interpretation of a lot of data, but that doesn't make my conclusions incorrect.
People regularly push back on research findings when they don't like them, but there's a lot of evidence here to say that men feel entitled and that it leads to anger. Unless you can find evidence to the contrary, we probably shouldn't ignore this conclusion.
Conclusions based on subjective "research" are simply biased speculation. Men have more testosterone & thus more angry thoughts than women. Makes me think of Camille Paglia's quip that "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper." But in your world, as long as men don't act more like women, men are angry & need fixed. Focus on Jack the Ripper & ignore the rest.
All research is subjective. All research has biases baked in. Discounting research because of those biases or that subjectivity is dangerous. Instead, we need to acknowledge the bias, look at the full body of research on the subject, and interpret it within the broader context. In this case, there’s quite a bit of evidence to support the notion of male entitlement and very little to suggest the contrary.
Qualitative research is what you're referring to & yes, it's highly subjective, to the point that the info gleaned is hardly considered actual data. I did link your article in my article today
https://open.substack.com/pub/graybeardactual/p/bias-against-men?r=27971c&utm_medium=ios
This is helpful. What do you think about unpacking anger and seeing which emotions are causing anger?
How "controls for that by simply asking- after defining anger", on the previous "Conventional wisdom has long held that men and women got angry at the same frequency but men tended to express it outwardly and women tended to suppress it or better control it" controls for different outwardly violence in males versus different expressions in women?, including "suppress it or better control it"?
Anger and its expressions are disjointed in females vs males, how exactly?, specially after attempting defining it per the researchers belief, not fact, what anger is?. Where is the control for defining something to someone?. How does one do that?
So females and males expressing anger outwardly differently is controlled how exactly?
So females and males expressing anger suppressing it or better controlling it is controlled how exactly?
It might seem irrational or absurd, but truly it is not to my thinking, and my thinking is not a mere opinion nor a belief.
Let me give a fantasy example: if grass and flowers were exactly angry the same amount of time, would you measure by flower counts or by lack of flower counts?. In both grass and flowers nonetheless to compare them?.
Where is the true control for female vs male forms of expression before measuring anything?, specially anger.
Particularly after defining something at them, not for them?.
Did the researchers controlled for sudden exhibition of discordant definitions?, how exactly one does that?.
They measured such effect in ALL research subjects?, to be sure it did not biased things considering by previous supposition differences in male vs females expressions of mere anger, as frequency, nonetheless, needing, apparently to be explained otherwise differently as previously believed?
What´s the basis for measuring "frequency" when 2 categories most likely express the pretending to be measured differently by supposition?, not by hypothesis. Sounds like comparing flowering among grass and flowers.
How “how often would you estimate you become angry", a self reported meassurement after defining anger controls for anything?
Is that a synecdoche, a straw person fallacy, an irrelevance fallacy or faker appeal to faker authority, among others?
"That same dataset finds that men are suffering from more anger-related consequences than women", is that a measuring tool bias, or trully trully is a fact?.
Relevant I think to my previous questions...
How does finding #2 actually measured suffering?, with a weighting scale?, a ruler? or mere rhetoric which by its essence is not physical, not material and obviously to me not objective?
Do you believe in subjective or intersubjective objective measurements?, do the researchers of the study you are apparently reviewing believe so?
---How was such believe or nay controlled for to being with?---
At least on researchers...
Now, for point #3 the same applies.
I am not saying I don´t believe women are less angry, I do believe that, what I am questioning is if such belief proffered by you and perhaps, assuming, the research you are summing up, can be called an opinion or a fact:
https://federicosotodelalba.substack.com/p/my-own-writings-reading-list-on-anything?r=4up0lp
And not called a mere belief, valuable as it is for me that women are way better than males... most of the time... but that´s a belief, not an opinion, and certailny from what I read here not a fact.
I have a more detailed comment on this post here:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-154871590?source=queue&autoPlay=false