Stoicism isn’t just for men – despite what the manosphere would tell you

[C C]

https://theconversation.com/stoicism-isn...you-292647

EXCERPT: Stoicism has attracted all sorts of fans over recent years, but one group whose interest in this ancient philosophy has attracted a good deal of comment is the “manosphere”. [...] Part of the problem is a deeply persistent image of the Stoic as someone who is emotionless and indifferent. They are courageous and resilient but perhaps not overly concerned with anyone but themselves. Is Stoicism really a cold and indifferent macho mindset? Is it really just for men?

As I argue in my new book Stoicism is not what you think, the short answer is of course “no”. The Stoics identified rationality as the defining characteristic of human beings, and it is our rationality that makes us members of a single global human community. All other characteristics, such as ethnicity, nationality and gender, are inconsequential in comparison to the shared reason that all humans possess. So there are no grounds for the Stoics to make a hard distinction between men and women... (MORE - details)

[Syne]

The problem with exercising Stoicism, and rationality in general, is that you have to be aware of, or at least accept, that you have biological, evolutionary drives and motives. If those drives and motives are overly involved in emotions for one sex, it is a larger barrier.

[Magical Realist]

My question to every Stoic is "Who are you being strong for?"

[confused2]

My question to every Stoic is "Who are you being strong for?"

I've always liked to pretend my self-image isn't held together by an old shoe lace, ticky-tacky and a sticky plaster. Now you've DESTROYED me.

[Syne]

I believe self-mastery, emotional resilience, and virtue are good for their own sake and my own well-being.
The alternative would is a lack of self-control, emotional volatility, and vice. Seems self-evident that those are not good for people.

[Magical Realist]

It doesn't take self-mastery, emotional resilence, and virtue to be yourself. If it does then it's not you you're being anymore.

[Syne]

It doesn't take self-mastery, emotional resilence, and virtue to be yourself. If it does then it's not you you're being anymore.

Many people are always looking to improve themselves. Whether that's education, skills, fitness, controlling their temper, quitting drinking or drugs, etc.. None of that improvement makes you any less you... unless deep down you're really just a worthless piece of shit.

If your vice, lack of self-control, and emotional volatility are what define you, you're a garbage person.

[Magical Realist]

None of that improvement makes you any less you... unless deep down you're really just a worthless piece of shit. If your vice, lack of self-control, and emotional volatility are what define you, you're a garbage person.

So he blurts out losing self-control and expressing his emotional volatility. You are a walking refutation of your own stoic philosophy. Maybe stoicism isn't for you eh?

[Syne]

None of that improvement makes you any less you... unless deep down you're really just a worthless piece of shit. If your vice, lack of self-control, and emotional volatility are what define you, you're a garbage person.

So he blurts out losing self-control and expressing his emotional volatility. You are a walking refutation of your own stoic philosophy. Maybe stoicism isn't for you eh?

Expressing opinions is not anti-stoic, even when expressed in strong language. You're projecting the kind of emotionality you would be feeling if you said such things.
My opinions are part of a well-thought-out and rational view of what makes people's lives objectively better. And if you could refute that, you would. But instead you try this weak, projecting ad hom. And i get it. I described a general sort of person and you felt that it described you. So you took it as ad hom and responded in kind.

[Magical Realist]

Live video of Syne's local Stoic's Society:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jyz8PTWReWo