Does it make a man feel masculine to have a big bank account?

Not in and of itself.

If men believe that a big bank account attracts women, then one believing they have a larger bank account than another man may lead one to feel more masculine than the other (and vice versa). Of course, it depends on the culture. This may very well be the case in some cultures and not others.

Whether or not you share in my specific understanding, it is well documented that masculinity is cultural.

Even if no one knows his salary or net worth?

It’s all about perception, so what is actually true doesn’t matter. Certainly if one portrays themselves as having a high salary/net worth - e.g. driving expensive cars, wearing fancy watches, living in big houses – that may lead men to believe it. No doubt that is why men do exactly those things (at least in my culture).

If no one sees your pink underwear in public would it challenge someone’s masculinity to wear it?

Anything is possible. Again, perception, not reality. No one actually seeing your underwear doesn’t mean one isn’t thinking about the possibility of it being revealed. What if it slips out? What if you get into an accident and healthcare workers need to remove your pants to save you?

Having shinier peacock feathers doesn’t necessarily mean you are the more virile bird, but if that’s what you’ve got you are going to play it up to make other males think you are the one who will win the female’s attention.

My understanding of masculinity is that it is the characteristics by which other men rate a perceived level of attraction from females through which they determine a competitive standing. Men often think big muscles brings all the ladies to the yard, for example, so that is one possible display of masculinity, leaving “weaklings” to feel inadequate and of a lower standing.

My impression is that men generally believe showing off boners in public scares away the females, so it does not seem like a good candidate for being a display of masculinity. But if we assume that showing off boners is something men believe woos the women, is the aforementioned difference noticeable in practice? Science can reveal a lot of things that nobody would ever realize living out regular day-to-day life.

It’s nice to have something to snack on that something didn’t have to die for.

At least nothing cute. As a grower of food for vegans, there are definitely animals killed in the process.

Why is that?

As the word male most commonly refers to those who produce motile gametes, which is what such a product seeks to impede in some way, semantically it is quite aptly named.

I take that, given that you mention it would have been useful in the past, that your gamete production facilities have been damaged in some way and you are still coming to terms with that?

deleted by creator

and you are trying to convince me it’s right.

I’m not sure I see the logic in that. Of what value would there be in convincing you that it is right? I have no agency over your brain. It means nothing to me. I wouldn’t try to convince a stone that I am right and the only difference between you and a stone is that you can speak back, hopefully offering knowledge when you do.

It’s okay for people to believe what they say.

It’s okay, but what’s the value proposition? It takes work to say things. The brain expects payment for the work it does. Knowledge can be sufficient payment, but if you have a belief no more knowledge can be acquired. It is final. I’m not receiving cash, a hug, anything. So, what is it that I have overlooked?

deleted by creator

Well, no, I’m not settled on it. It is an idea, but it has not made it to belief status. I’m talking about it, after all. If it were a belief, what value proposition would there be in such an exchange?

They genuinely believe the dumb shit they say.

It is unlikely that anyone believes what they say, as why would you waste time talking about something you believe in? You already believe it. Your mind has been made. There is absolutely nothing more that can be said. Discussion is only interesting when you can learn something new, which means exploring the things you don’t (yet) believe in.

There is good reason why every comment isn’t: “Hay guys, did you know that 1+1=2!?!?” – something you no doubt believe in. What are you going to learn by bringing it up again and again? Not much. There is no value in exploring what you believe.

When someone says something, they are seeking more information to validate an idea they have. With sufficient validation the idea brought forward may transform into a belief, but that transition requires exploration. Talk is how we explore ideas.

If you watch people, the pattern becomes quite apparent: Once something becomes a belief, interest is lost, and the talk about that subject will fade. They move on to something new that they want to find validation in. Sometimes people will get stuck on an idea that isn’t believable. This is where you find conspiracy theorists and the like, where people build up a whole persona around an idea that they keep failing to validate.

but remember who has the most power to change these standards. Women didn’t have to demand other women for suffrage, they had to demand it from men.

Not really. Power has traditionally been held by couples, with men putting on the act and women pulling the strings behind the scenes. Our forefathers even created an entire institution known as marriage to establish these alliances formally. In fact, for a long, time women were more likely to be a part of the anti-suffragism movement than of the suffragism movement.

Even voting rights at the time were attached to land, not people. Before industrialization, it was impractical to own land without an entire family available to tend to it. A single man would never be able to cut the wood, grow the crops, care for the animals, and do all the household chores. There isn’t enough time in the day. As such, land ownership too was for couples – thus voting was for couples.

Industrialization was the turning point. It brought increasing opportunities to live a life alone, and those alone started growing more and more disgruntled about a world made for couples.

I believe men do have the power to change this culture of emotional isolationism but it will require self-reflection, effort and a strong demand from oneself and other men to be willing to seek liberation- at the risk of what comes with shaking up the status quo.

I don’t. Such movements happen because of technical advancement. Industrialization, as mentioned, was a pivotal time not only for suffrage but a number of movements. The rise of automation, freeing even more hands from the kitchen, was also a significant period with respect to these topics. These things would have never happened without those new, at the time, technologies changing the way we live.

When the world changes, then people change. There is little evidence that people can change ahead of the world. After all, things happen for a reason. There was logic in giving power to couples at some point in history – until the world changed and it no longer made sense.

Similarly, men are guarded today for a reason. Until some technical advancement lifts that reason from hanging over their heads, it isn’t going anywhere. Going to war against an immovable object doesn’t yield well.

You come to write comments on an Internet forum when you could be doing literally anything else with your life and you only just now realized you were wasting your time?

This verbal rape is poorly considered. There is no reason not to use rape as a metaphor when it works. This is like saying I wouldn’t butter my toast with a knife because some people have been unwelcomely stabbed. Except I would, because there is no connection between someone being stabbed and me buttering my toast. Words are just a tool. Ascribing emotions to a tool may be something people do, but it does not make sense to.

No doubt there are stabbing victims who are affected by someone buttering toast with a knife, but at some point it has to be their problem to sort out. Society would stop functioning if we had to consider everyone’s irrational idiosyncrasies. But we have chosen to live in a functioning society, so that means only problems shared by the collective as a whole are to be considered by the whole. Individual concerns are on the individual to figure out. Like it or not, that is what living in a society entails.

The dictionary defines refugee as : “a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.” While those could lead to mortal danger, they may only lead to undue suffering. Fleeing one’s home to avoid said undue suffering still qualifies as refugeeism, as refugee is defined by the dictionary.

Of course, the dictionary is only a record of observation around how people have commonly use words in the past, not some kind of rule of law. Language is merely a tool, and one that is available to be used by the user as they see fit. Refugee is whatever we want it to be, and from context we understand that refugee here means someone who left Reddit to use Lemmy. How refugee is used in other contexts is irrelevant.