EhForumUser

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.

Fair, but it has also lost its connotations with being an insult over the decades.

Being a geek and/or nerd became economically useful when we moved into the information age, and thus is now considered in high regard. The average Joe is now envious of geeks and nerds. Most people would love to be able to trade places with Bill Gates or Elon Musk.

Of course, it wasn't always that way.

Geek and nerd had negative connotations when geeks and nerds were commonly poor, but then things shifted and, notably with the rise of the Information Age, being a geek and/or nerd turned into being useful in becoming wealthy. Now it is a compliment.

True of all insults, really. Same reason, for example, words with associations to slavery are considered insults. Or those related to the sale of sexual favours. The implication is that one is poor. Any words you can throw at someone who is rich will be something most people will want to wear as a badge of honour.

Should definitely make an English word for exactly that.

We have! Teacher.

What is insulting about geek and nerd?

Is it the biting a chicken's head off thing? I'm not really sure how that translates to an insult, though. Maybe you are ashamed of biting chicken heads? But if that's the case, maybe just don't bite chicken heads?

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?

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.

My argument has always rested on the question of why someone might buy an account.

And that is because the good names are already taken. People are also paying stupid amounts of money to secure an already registered .com and it is clearly for reasons of vanity, not malicious activity.

Technically speaking, jfkldajflkdnalkmfq3u409ijaeklfja0ui3qjaklfa.tires works just as well as any other domain name. Cheap bastards like me would unquestionably choose that over paying millions for something that looks nicer, but those with millions to burn clearly have other ideas.

I’d say it’s not even a problem of someone sweeping things under the rug, but an intruder throwing dust and trash all around.

The disabled and people with other life challenges will always exist. Call them swept under the rug or trash thrown around, but either way, why do you believe that is the right approach to dealing with them as opposed to accommodating them? Just because it is easier for you?