Post: #26

Quote:“Healthy Masculinities Week,” organized by the Margaret Cuninggim Women’s Center.

With a lecture by the first man to minor in women’s studies

And

Ehrmann spoke on an all-male panel in 2013 titled “Breaking the Male Code,” which was organized by Vagina Monologues writer Eve Ensler.

The three red flags which stood out the most and it's all looking like collusion.

Let's have a bunch of women and limp wristed manginas telling the ever weakening/impressionable males what masculinity is. Yes, this is what guys need, a lesson on how to be a man by women.

Post: #27

I posted about this in the general knowledge thread earlier this week (before this thread existed) and have pasted my thoughts about it below:

(10-05-2015 03:22 PM)DeeDee Wrote:  Apparently the first man[0] to minor in women’s studies is an "anti-sexist activist" which founded a consulting firm[1] that "provides gender violence prevention and leadership training to institutions in the public and private sectors". At a recent event at Vanderbilt University titled "Healthy Masculinities Week"[2] he stated that “there has been a ratcheting up of what it takes to be considered menacing in the 1980s and 90s.”.

This statement is mostly based on his work in the educational video "Tough Guise" (from 2000, sold through mediaed)[3] in which he explains this concept of ever increasing masculinity and how this leads to a broadly carried concept of "more violence is more masculine". A sample from this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI

The event held at the university was the second edition, with the previous being called "The Politics of Masculinity"[4]. This year's event got quite some negative response in the media, notably Fox News denouncing the event by stating that "they try to demasculinize men" and "feminize men" with one of the most quoted statements from the special being: "and they are trying - and by they I mean the academics and the liberal left - to turn men into thumb-sucking, little beta-males in skinny jeans"[5, starting 1:35]

So not only did I learn there is a public dialogue about masculinity, it's also getting pretty mainstream with even Fox News covering it. This was in September. Though I have nothing in favor of Fox News, it is quite remarkable they made such a bold statement (though by a conservative feminine panel member[6]) which sounds like a typical red pilled insult. Like it was quoted directly from some top comment which you would find in certain communities online.

There was a thread about this "Healthy Masculinities Week" on the forum[7], but other than that it hasn't been discussed much in this circle. I considered creating a new thread, but it's not that relevant anymore. Maybe it's too late, but if Roosh (or anyone capable of that matter) wants to keep up the stampede of going public with the neo-masculine ideology, this could have been an excellent entry point.

Maybe a close eye should be kept on Vanderbilt organizing such an event in the future. The subject line of their latest masculinity event was "Explore healthy masculinity through various lenses: American society, the gay and bisexual community, fraternities, and more" so as a liberal university I see no reason why they shouldn't include the neo-masculinity lens, too. Other than of course the reason being that they don't want to hear it.

[0] http://www.jacksonkatz.com/
[1] http://www.mvpstrat.com/
[2] http://www.vanderbilt.edu/WomensCenter/n...-week-2015
[3] http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24488/
[4] http://www.vanderbilt.edu/mhs/2014/08/pa...sculinity/
[5] https://video.foxnews.com/v/446421949900...e-students
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Tantaros but more importantly https://www.google.com/search?q=andrea+t...s&tbm=isch
[7] /archive/inde...50277.html

Post: #28

It's kind of working as well, I just saw that telegraph article about wimps being 'stronger' than body builders, but not really because of less muscle mass overall, posted on a facebook fitness group.
The group were actually praising it, and criticising bodybuilders. I explained why it was stupid feel good clickbait bullshit to everyone. A lot of impressionable future pussies there as well unfortunately.

Post: #29

(10-06-2015 10:25 AM)Horus Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 11:36 PM)eatthishomie Wrote:  Anyone have the picture of the author?

My guess is it's a rail thin mangina or a 500 lb hamuniverse.

Here he is. It's not quite what I expected.

No, not him.

It's this guy:



On his twitter, his avi is a mirror selfie ... like a sorority queen.

Post: #30

I'll write my thoughts on this later, but for now...

(10-06-2015 12:21 PM)Snowplow Wrote:  Ehrmann spoke on an all-male panel in 2013 titled “Breaking the Male Code,” which was organized by Vagina Monologues writer Eve Ensler.

Eve Ensler - a radical feminist who thinks sexual contact between a female child and an adult woman is empowering for the child - was heavily-involved in the script for 'Mad Max: Fury Road', a blindly-obvious attempt to subvert a male action icon by using Détournement to recontextualise him as the submissive character to a stoic, badass female. The audience should come out of the film thinking: without the female character's superior physical and emotional strength, he wouldn't have survived.

Gamergate is largely-about fighting Détournement, though most wouldn't be aware of it. See something like 'The Last Of Us', where the male character is the whiny bitch, prone to emotional outbursts, whilst the female characters are all controlled, world-weary and stoic. One of them even does gives a cowboyesque 'last stand' speech, allowing the other characters to escape. Or 'Gone Home', what initially looks like a horror game but the scariest moments turn out to be being force to listen to shitty Riot Grrrl bands play their original songs rip-off 'Sweet Jane' with next-to-no musical ability.

Remember, to progressives, the only good man is one that resembles a traditional woman, and the only good woman is one that resembles a traditional man.

Post: #31

In unrelated news:

It turns out "30 minutes of exercise a day" is wrong - It should actually be between 1-2 hours.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-y...yre-doing/

Quote:They found that those following the 30-minutes-a-day guidelines issued by the American Heart Association had “modest reductions” in heart failure risk compared to those who did not work out at all.

But those who exercised twice and four times as much had “a substantial risk reduction" of 20 percent and 35 percent, respectively.

Post: #32

Quote: Individual muscle fibres were isolated and tested to see how fast and powerfully they contracted. The results of these experiments allowed the team to make an assessment of muscle quality.
In contrast to bodybuilders, power athletes appeared to have an improved level of muscle quality, the researchers found.
''The training method seems to have an impact on muscle quality, which is of great importance for trainers and coaches interested in improving either performance or appearance of athletes,'' said Prof Degens.

(10-06-2015 09:27 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  The article above is easily debunked by anyone who understands math.

In one sentence, my muscle fibers are 1.1 times stronger than AnonymousBosch's, but he has three times the volume of muscle fibers; hence Bosch is almost three times stronger than me, despite the stronger gram for gram capacity of my muscle fibers.

I've heard of vanity sizing with regard to women's clothing, and this is vanity science with regard to malex mascularity (and masculinity).

Bodybuilders prioritize mass over relative strength.

Competitive athletes prioritize relative strength over mass.

Limp-wristed manginas prioritize their feeeeeelings over fitness.

News at 11.

Post: #33

(10-06-2015 10:00 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I'm going to make a prediction right now, and it's about weightlifting and gyms.

Expect gyms and lifting weights to be the next target for SJW and feminist attack. They're going to target them as another center of masculinity and male improvement.

They've been probing powerlifting clubs in my state for the last couple of years. We'd have limp-wristed manginas and neon-colour haired freaks come to our club, waste everyone's time and then complain about things like:

- too much testosterone in the room
- too much aggression (shouting, grunting)
- not being inclusive (because we have dedicated sessions for competitors only)

etc.

So far we've managed to get rid of them easily enough, but who knows in the future...

Post: #34

(10-06-2015 10:00 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  @Suits:

Heheh...yeah, "Pudwack" is an old word...haven't used it in ages, but it fits here.

I'm going to make a prediction right now, and it's about weightlifting and gyms.

Expect gyms and lifting weights to be the next target for SJW and feminist attack. They're going to target them as another center of masculinity and male improvement.

Expect to see efforts to push this agenda:

1. Cameras in gyms to make women feel "safe"

2. Shaming of muscular guys

3. Intense promotion of pussified fitness activities like "spinning" and Zumba.

4. Female-friendly policies at gyms that marginalize men and pedestalize women.

That is so fucking scary to think about.


As for Jackson Katz. So this is the guy who started the "See something... DO something!" campaign in the military, dopey posters and all? Now I know who my enemy is. His appearance is not what I expected. He may prefer some rear insertion from seal team 6.

Post: #35

(10-06-2015 09:18 AM)not-a-pua Wrote:  Seems like lifting is coming under attack?

Quote:Wimps are 'stronger than bodybuilders', study finds

A gram of bodybuilders' muscle is less powerful than the same amount of tissue from someone who did not weight train, tests show

Wimps might have the last laugh on gym-obsessed hunks - gram-for-gram, bodybuilders' muscles are weaker than those of people who never touch weights, research has shown.
Scientists found that bodybuilders had extraordinarily large muscle fibres capable of generating forces far greater than normal for an average human.
Yet tests showed that a gram of their muscle was less powerful than the same amount of tissue from someone who did not weight train.
Lead scientist Professor Hans Degens, from Manchester Metropolitan University, said: ''Most of us are impressed by the enormous muscle bulk of bodybuilders and think that these people must be extremely strong, like the 'Incredible Hulk'.

''The surprising thing, however, was that a gram of muscle from bodybuilders produced less force than that from non-bodybuilders, and it thus seems that the 'muscle quality' is less in bodybuilders.
''It appears that excessive muscle growth may have detrimental effects on the quality of the muscle, and one may well be better off with normal-sized muscles than with metabolically expensive large muscles.''
Bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass - enough to compensate for the weakness of each gram, the research suggests.

''We had no indication that the proteins generating force - muscle motor proteins - work less in bodybuilders, but it could be that they have fewer motor proteins per gram muscle,'' Prof Degens added.
''It would be interesting to see what aspect in the training of bodybuilders causes this decrease in muscle quality.''
The scientists, whose findings are reported in the journal Experimental Physiology, took small muscle samples from the thighs of 12 male bodybuilders, six power athletes such as sprinters, and 14 men who were physically active but did not weight train.


Individual muscle fibres were isolated and tested to see how fast and powerfully they contracted. The results of these experiments allowed the team to make an assessment of muscle quality.
In contrast to bodybuilders, power athletes appeared to have an improved level of muscle quality, the researchers found.
''The training method seems to have an impact on muscle quality, which is of great importance for trainers and coaches interested in improving either performance or appearance of athletes,'' said Prof Degens.

This is one of the most horrifically misquoted articles I've seen this year. I'm assuming by "bodybuilder" they mean stage competitor / IFBB, which seems a correct assumption considering the study sample.

Yeah, bodybuilder muscle is extremely dehydrated and weak before competition. In fact, at the peak "aesthetic" form, the bodybuilder is at his weakest. The weakness in the muscle fibers is more on account of the nature of training and the insane diet run through the muscles up to 6 weeks before a show.

Secondly, "power athletes" are not wimps. Neither are normal physically active men. This is pure clickbait trash.

Post: #36

(10-06-2015 10:50 PM)ManVsMachine Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:18 AM)not-a-pua Wrote:  Seems like lifting is coming under attack?

Quote:Wimps are 'stronger than bodybuilders', study finds

A gram of bodybuilders' muscle is less powerful than the same amount of tissue from someone who did not weight train, tests show

Wimps might have the last laugh on gym-obsessed hunks - gram-for-gram, bodybuilders' muscles are weaker than those of people who never touch weights, research has shown.
Scientists found that bodybuilders had extraordinarily large muscle fibres capable of generating forces far greater than normal for an average human.
Yet tests showed that a gram of their muscle was less powerful than the same amount of tissue from someone who did not weight train.
Lead scientist Professor Hans Degens, from Manchester Metropolitan University, said: ''Most of us are impressed by the enormous muscle bulk of bodybuilders and think that these people must be extremely strong, like the 'Incredible Hulk'.

''The surprising thing, however, was that a gram of muscle from bodybuilders produced less force than that from non-bodybuilders, and it thus seems that the 'muscle quality' is less in bodybuilders.
''It appears that excessive muscle growth may have detrimental effects on the quality of the muscle, and one may well be better off with normal-sized muscles than with metabolically expensive large muscles.''
Bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass - enough to compensate for the weakness of each gram, the research suggests.

''We had no indication that the proteins generating force - muscle motor proteins - work less in bodybuilders, but it could be that they have fewer motor proteins per gram muscle,'' Prof Degens added.
''It would be interesting to see what aspect in the training of bodybuilders causes this decrease in muscle quality.''
The scientists, whose findings are reported in the journal Experimental Physiology, took small muscle samples from the thighs of 12 male bodybuilders, six power athletes such as sprinters, and 14 men who were physically active but did not weight train.


Individual muscle fibres were isolated and tested to see how fast and powerfully they contracted. The results of these experiments allowed the team to make an assessment of muscle quality.
In contrast to bodybuilders, power athletes appeared to have an improved level of muscle quality, the researchers found.
''The training method seems to have an impact on muscle quality, which is of great importance for trainers and coaches interested in improving either performance or appearance of athletes,'' said Prof Degens.

This is one of the most horrifically misquoted articles I've seen this year. I'm assuming by "bodybuilder" they mean stage competitor / IFBB, which seems a correct assumption considering the study sample.

Yeah, bodybuilder muscle is extremely dehydrated and weak before competition. In fact, at the peak "aesthetic" form, the bodybuilder is at his weakest. The weakness in the muscle fibers is more on account of the nature of training and the insane diet run through the muscles up to 6 weeks before a show.

Secondly, "power athletes" are not wimps. Neither are normal physically active men. This is pure clickbait trash.

It said that power athletes have an improved level of muscle quality in contrast to bodybuilders. It didn't say they are wimps. Also, it would make sense that muscle fibers of bodybuilders are weaker gram for gram than someone who doesn't lift. Training like a bodybuilder means the focus is on pure size and aesthetics instead of strength and performance, which means doing tons of isolation exercises that don't translate to real world movements or strength, and actually tend to hinder athletic ability.

There's a reason the best athletes in the world aren't and don't look like bodybuilders, with the notable exception of Mariusz Pudzianowski, who won five worlds strongest man titles, although I would venture to guess he didn't train like a bodybuilder and simply has freak genetics.

Post: #37

If they really want to talk about "toxic masculinity" maybe they should talk about the incredibly high rates of violent crime among young, mostly black males in the inner city and how most of these young males were raised by single mothers and raised without a strong masculine influence in their lives. Somehow I don't think GI Joes and Arnold movies are the root of all this hyper aggressive, anti social, violent behavior from so many impoverished urban youths.

Obviously this will never mentioned by any of these hacks because these people have no interest in actually solving or the problem. That would be like the tobacco companies developing a pill that makes people never want to smoke again.

Also, the comments in this article are refreshing to read.

Post: #38

Yuck. It's as if the organizers' idea of 'healthy masculinity' mean:







...et al.

I know I previously brought those two up, but it's worth repeating. Every. Single. Time. As. Reminders..

Post: #39

You can measure an articles quality and truthfulness by the comments that appear at the bottom.

Or specifically, the lack of quality and truthfulness if there isn't a section at all.

Post: #40

(10-06-2015 09:18 AM)not-a-pua Wrote:  Seems like lifting is coming under attack?

Quote:Wimps are 'stronger than bodybuilders', study finds

A gram of bodybuilders' muscle is less powerful than the same amount of tissue from someone who did not weight train, tests show

Wimps might have the last laugh on gym-obsessed hunks - gram-for-gram, bodybuilders' muscles are weaker than those of people who never touch weights, research has shown.
Scientists found that bodybuilders had extraordinarily large muscle fibres capable of generating forces far greater than normal for an average human.
Yet tests showed that a gram of their muscle was less powerful than the same amount of tissue from someone who did not weight train.
Lead scientist Professor Hans Degens, from Manchester Metropolitan University, said: ''Most of us are impressed by the enormous muscle bulk of bodybuilders and think that these people must be extremely strong, like the 'Incredible Hulk'.

''The surprising thing, however, was that a gram of muscle from bodybuilders produced less force than that from non-bodybuilders, and it thus seems that the 'muscle quality' is less in bodybuilders.
''It appears that excessive muscle growth may have detrimental effects on the quality of the muscle, and one may well be better off with normal-sized muscles than with metabolically expensive large muscles.''
Bodybuilders are only strong because they have so much muscle mass - enough to compensate for the weakness of each gram, the research suggests.

''We had no indication that the proteins generating force - muscle motor proteins - work less in bodybuilders, but it could be that they have fewer motor proteins per gram muscle,'' Prof Degens added.
''It would be interesting to see what aspect in the training of bodybuilders causes this decrease in muscle quality.''
The scientists, whose findings are reported in the journal Experimental Physiology, took small muscle samples from the thighs of 12 male bodybuilders, six power athletes such as sprinters, and 14 men who were physically active but did not weight train.


Individual muscle fibres were isolated and tested to see how fast and powerfully they contracted. The results of these experiments allowed the team to make an assessment of muscle quality.
In contrast to bodybuilders, power athletes appeared to have an improved level of muscle quality, the researchers found.
''The training method seems to have an impact on muscle quality, which is of great importance for trainers and coaches interested in improving either performance or appearance of athletes,'' said Prof Degens.

The author of the article is listed as "Agency". It's not enough for the author to remove the comment section. He's too much of a coward to even attach his name to this crap. Hell, he doesn't even link to or name the study he cites. What shit-for-brains editor greenlit this?