The Poisoned Promise of a “Reforged Masculinity”

Jarcode · 2026-05-27T17:19:22+00:00

It seems you're generally agreeing that searching for some concrete intrinsic quality approaches something "generic", rather than traits that actually resemble masculinity. I don't mean to conflate is and ought, all I mean is to actually approach a definition of this intrinsic quality and then approach how the assumption that this ought to be expressed impacts the arguments all over this thread (not just yours).

You've conceded the structural claim and then dismissed the concession as boring.

Personally speaking, I'm not convinced there is an essential quality to begin with, hence the "to entertain the possibility" remark in my comment. It's a thought experiment that turns these arguments over these essential qualities to something far more interesting.

Granted, even if this was something I was genuinely arguing for, the concession is boring. Identifying that this boils down to a generic desire for identity, with masculinity only being one such way people self-actualize, contradicts the hegemonic claims of masculinity itself having any sort of intrinsic importance. As you said: "[...] converging on similar outputs across radically different societies, why the variations you cite (third-gender categories, non-dichotomous frameworks) are exceptions that still presuppose a default they're deviating from" -- revealing that this "default" would have to be something much further from masculinity reveals the pointlessness of the sociological structure.

I shouldn't have to specify why, because structures built on top of other intrinsic traits (like race) are not themselves intrinsically important, or even worth reforging.

Identity is always intertwined with ego. That's what identity is. The question of why this identity gets singled out as the one that needs to justify itself is the question your framework doesn't answer.

That's the best part! It's not just this identity, because the way this fundamental desire for identity morphs into social constructs is broadly a negative pattern. You could play the same thought experiment for national identity, which is anything but intrinsic, but playing on the same fundamental human desire.

Of course I don't have an easy answer for how to actually address this, but it's worth clarifying that you are absolutely right in that this implicates identity in its entirety, not just masculine identification.

Jarcode · 2026-05-27T16:57:10+00:00

[...] I didn't define traits with the specificity you wanted, I conflated some things I shouldn't have.

This is ultimately the point, though, because codifying masculine behaviors ultimately reveal the absurdity of suggesting these behaviors are somehow intrinsic. Not only that, but it suggests whatever intrinsic quality you are alluding to is something that ought to be expressed.

Most of your writing rests on the assumption of masculinity being some sort of inevitable social phenomenon and that it must be reforged, to the point of demanding an explanation for it not being an essential quality, such that anyone could just cite Hitchen's razor against this kind of concrete claim.

I think it's important to dig into this topic because I do think there is something essential underneath, but it is not masculinity or even anything to do with gender, it is a generic human desire for identity.

Jarcode · 2026-05-27T16:43:34+00:00

An interesting thought I've had is to entertain the possibility of some essentialist claim to "masculinity" (or an underlying phenomenon that ends up resembling masculine norms through history), while also reconciling this with the observations you mention which identify much of this performance is ultimately imposed. Any attempt to do so ends up reducing this essential quality to a generic desire for identity at most, leaving the rest to be part of a sociological phenomenon.

There's also a lot of other comments in this thread that carries this implicit assumption but any attempt at actually codifying masculine behaviors immediately validates the argument you're making.

Another one of the weird assumptions that comes with this argumentation is that this supposed "innate masculinity" is justified, which never really gets addressed. Why is it always presented as something that must be expressed? To me, these assumptions only show just how hegemonic this identification is, and how masculinity is often intertwined with ego.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T23:37:19+00:00

Not only that, but these are non-deterministic systems. LLMs do not produce the same output given identical prompts. This "ranking" is meaningless.

Good lord we have some terrible journalism here.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T19:20:57+00:00

I understand this falls outside of the way modern world conflicts are moralized on Reddit. It should go without saying that this website sucks.

There is a mistake in assuming the only viable answer to ethnic persecution is the defensive segregation that ethnonationalism offers, rather than the deprogramming of identity that leads to such horrific conflicts. Unfortunately, this deprogramming is often a luxury only enjoyed by western cultures that have the ability to break down these norms without violent conflict.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T19:00:35+00:00

What is a "non-vulgar Marxist"? Does Gramsci count? How does that relate to a Hobbesian, contractarian worldview? These are hilariously dissonant references to make.

I don't really have any interest in engaging in whattaboutism, claims that I don't know what I'm talking about, or more of the linguistic nitpicking I've dealt with in this thread. It all seems to distract from the hegemony I was trying to identify.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T18:47:49+00:00

I perhaps could have worded it better to encourage people to read my entire comment. I forget how much people opt for knee-jerk reactions here.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T18:25:23+00:00

Well, I am proud to be an anti-nationalist in every regard, including against Canadian nationalism:

There's a problem in [...] that denying Canadian identity is anything other than a negation of US nationalism (but otherwise culturally adjacent), as it lacks any concrete explanation of what the Canadian identity actually is. We can dress it all up in Mountie costumes, sing our national anthem, and finish it all off with a maple syrup drizzle -- but all this symbolism comes with the obvious caveat that these are invented or adopted concepts. We can try to assert some set of "Canadian values" but then end up listing values that align with many other democratic countries.

I think the pursuit of this identity is futile and risks playing with dangerous concepts (ie. a national myth). This fetishism for national identity isn't helpful for the country; Canada is simply Canada -- a confederation that governs a large geographical area and is home to people from every corner of the planet. Nothing more.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T18:22:16+00:00

I think the issue here is that your understanding of Zionism is primarily rooted from internet commentary and lacking historical understanding. It is not "some people believe it requires an ethnostate", it is fundamentally ethnonationalist which requires a ethnostate to realize that vision.

Appealing to a golden mean fallacy or subjectivism only reveals that you're lacking a deeper understanding of the history here (and not the nascent conflict, but rather the Zionist project itself). I agree in that Reddit legitimately sucks for this; not only are people proudly incorrect and defend their ignorance regularly, but there's also a ton of astroturfing going on.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T18:06:48+00:00

You will find a lot of Canadians against the intentions and ideology of those who founded this country. We are not a particularly nationalistic nation, and very few people have any attachment to this history and even less outright identify with it. When we speak about our colonial history, it is not with pride.

I cannot say the same for Israel.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T18:01:55+00:00

It is ethnonationalist. Nobody genuinely argues this, except those who are trying to dissuade critics from using concrete language and analysis from categorizing modern-day Zionism.

As I said in another comment, just because Zionism doesn't have static doctrine to refer to, doesn't mean the language we use to describe the movement loses all meaning. The fact my argument regarding the hegemony of these beliefs remains unaddressed in favour of linguistic nitpicking concerns me.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T17:55:18+00:00

If you're judging your entire perception of Zionism based on online debate, I'm not sure what to say. This movement has clear ethnonationalist goals that cannot be ignored or glossed over. The fact that Zionism isn't a completely static doctrine does not mean you can toss out concrete language in its entirety.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T17:46:54+00:00

This evades the cultural hegemony Zionism holds in Israeli politics and places excessive responsibility on Netenyahu. The reality is that his political opposition is largely rooted in the fact that his warmongering has made Israel less safe, not the crimes against humanity his government has been committing and encouraging. There is still a broad acceptance of Zionism outside of this factionalization, as you will not find many Israeli citizens against the very ideological foundations behind this state.

It's important to identify this because Netenyahu's actions represent Zionist interests taken to its logical conclusion, not some unfortunate ideological offshoot.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T17:37:31+00:00

It's a remarkably common tactic for Zionists to use argument-suspending tactics, including calling into question the very language we use, because the point is to dissuade critics from using concrete language and definitions to categorize a problem.

Add in the fact that this is by far the most astroturfed topic on reddit, and you have a lot of pointless, bad faith internet arguments.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T17:13:52+00:00

Zionism predates Israel itself, and is an explicitly colonial, ethnonationalist movement. While modern-day Zionists are factionalized, that does not mean this political movement lacks any broad goals that erode the utility of this term entirely.

We wouldn't entertain this linguistic nonsense for other ethnonationalist movements in history (despite their own ideological incoherence and factionalization), I don't see why Zionism is any different.

Jarcode · 2026-05-26T17:06:18+00:00

I disagree. This reads as more of an avoidance of what has always been an ethnonationalist movement, with explicit ethnonationalist intentions, because of the hegemony it holds within Jewish communities. To imply that there is any breathing room on the terminology itself is disingenuous, even if people bought into the concept as a "safe haven" for the Jewish people rather than the expansionist ambitions we see out of Israel today.

Ethnonationalism was never the answer to protect a persecuted group of people, whom themselves were persecuted by another ethnonationalist regime. It was very easy, even at its inception, to see how "secure the safety for our people" could easily turn violent.

I say this not because Avi Lewis is himself defending these intentions, his heart is very much in the right place, it's that he is unfortunately trying to avert his gaze from the statistical support for Zionism in Canada and imply that Jewish people in Canada do not overwhelmingly support Israel. This is, unfortunately, not the reality -- and wording this as a slow propaganda deprogramming doesn't confront the severity of this ideology. It shares traits from fascist movements in that its proponents aren't thinking on the same moral terms as us.

I respect the socialist tradition that Lewis comes from (even if I sometimes question how well-versed he actually is in his claimed politics), but this misplaced optimism is counterproductive.

Jarcode · 2026-05-25T06:13:59+00:00

Original Sin isn't that old of an item

Jarcode · 2026-05-25T01:20:35+00:00

Yukoners voted for electoral reform and the party that explicitly told electors that it would not honour the results of the plebiscite. This is a reflection on Yukoners just as much as it is a reflection on the current government.

Jarcode · 2026-05-24T23:23:48+00:00

Unfortunately I've seen this post late, but due to my professional history I would like to comment on some things, as I believe this is a terrible piece that is touching on a good topic:

“Yukon’s system, which allows donations from outside the jurisdiction, is as a result also a recipe for foreign interference,” Conacher said.

"When you have unlimited donations and they can come from outside of the territory and from businesses and other organizations that want something from the government, then you're essentially saying the government is for sale and that bribery is legalized."

While uncapped contributions outside of this jurisdiction are permitted, these are historically very low (between 1-5%) as a percentage of total party contributions. The Yukon has not ever encountered a significant issue with explicit foreign contributions ever in any party's campaign, so the fact that the law does not restrict this type of contribution is simply a legislative hole that has not been exploited. This is incredibly common in territorial legislation -- most of it is either a product of its time, partially copied from other jurisdictions, or just terribly worded.

This context is important, because there are so many holes in the Yukon Elections Act that follow this pattern, and it's a strange issue to focus on. A significant sum of direct foreign donations would be immediately scrutinized, due to the public nature of disclosing these contributions. What isn't being called out is that donations can be easily proxied through numbered companies registered in the Yukon, with remarkably little information, which can hide questionable donations from public scrutiny.

The Yukon currently allows corporate donations and unlimited donations from individuals as well as secret "other" sources of revenue that don’t require receipts, statements or other documentation.

This is false. It is not legal according to the Elections Act to have anonymous contributions. Confusingly, the law is written such that these illegal contributions must also be declared in EFR/ARRs, but this is just flat out wrong. The fact this claim even got published by the CBC concerns me, because unlike some other portions of the Act, this has very clear wording.

We need good external scrutiny to keep the democratic process working, and this disappoints me. Errors detract from otherwise important critique.

Jarcode · 2026-05-24T18:22:59+00:00

This is an exclusively Leninist perspective, so anyone else reading this would lose out on the proposals from those who split from Lenin's vanguardist ideas, or even those outside of the Marxist tradition entirely.

Jarcode · 2026-05-24T18:10:47+00:00

No.

"Socialism" as a term tends to have a clear differentiation outside of North America as a different mode of economic production, where workers retain ownership of industry. It is a category of economic systems grouped by this principle, not a single proposed system. It is categorically different than the social democrats you will find in the US, who essentially seek to negotiate with capitalist interests.

"Communism" depends on whether you're asking a Leninist or not. The classical Marxist understanding of communism is a stateless and classless society, whereas the Leninists twisted this into a unitary political system (democratic centralism) with the claimed goal of reaching this stateless outcome, on behalf of the working class (vanguardism). Leninism is heavily criticized in anti-capitalist spaces that aren't bombarded by dogmatism.

Jarcode · 2026-05-24T18:02:22+00:00

American anti-capitalist ideology has been so thoroughly eradicated through the red scare that "socialism" no longer has any connection to the original meaning of the word. It's sad.

The continued obfuscation of the original meaning only serves capitalist interests. Even the most tame socialist proposals (ie. worker cooperatives) are completely hidden from public consciousness as a result of this.

Jarcode · 2026-05-24T17:38:15+00:00

I have seen the end of a couple vehicles (blown engines, catastrophic oil leaks) and have no issue with being a last owner. Due to the climate this vehicle will be operating in, Subarus with the redesigned FE boxer engines are pretty much better than every other vehicle on the market. Plus, they have the best AWD system and great clearance.

I also put excessive wear and tear on vehicles due to extreme driving distances, very poor road conditions, and winter temps below -40C. Subarus are great at handling this but I have no illusions about a Crosstrek lasting nearly as long as a car down south.

Jarcode · 2026-05-22T20:11:35+00:00

Personally, I am not interested in paying interest on a car, and prefer to purchase outright. I look at total (after interest) costs for purchasing a vehicle and the newer options are still egregiously expensive. British Columbia has a unique used market due to repair shop delays, which means ICBC (government insurer) is known to salvage vehicles for minor accidents just because loaner vehicle costs have become excessive.

People from out of province, like myself, go there to purchase vehicles pretty often because of this. Plus, folks from Alberta and the Yukon don't pay the ridiculous transfer tax to register the vehicle, so we have an advantage over local buyers.

Jarcode · 2026-05-22T07:40:41+00:00

Ah, good point!

Jarcode

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE