I am not in Europe right now and am not a native European but would be really interested to see if this is becoming the norm. Are people realizing that the European culture has become too soft? Based on where male culture has gone in the last decade or two in the US, It would seem as though she is on to something here, we no longer value traditionally male traits and have effeminized men to a certain degree. Is Europe now in the midst of unintended consequences?
It's going to be more like 10 years, not 50, but it's not like it's a surprise. When not enough people telling other people to "fuck off" and "shut the fuck up", there are consequences.
I think with the increasing acceptance of LGBT culture, masculinity has varied a bit. I count that as a good thing, actually. Not every masculine creature needs to be funneled into a deer-hunting, 4x4 pick up truck stereotype to be manly. Having a slightly wider range of masculinity is a good thing. It's not that macho traits have gone away, it's that fewer men feel compelled to embody them falsely.
Same thing happened in the 70's with the popularity of Phil Donahue and Alan Alda, not quite to this extent, but I think it's becoming a cyclical thing.
The need for false or forced masculinity is as dumb as the dismissal of genuine masculinity (i.e. don't give a shit about what people think or what you're supposed to be). You don't have to be one or the other, and yes there's different interpretations of it too. The same can apply to women, it's equality.
Thats very dependent on the country's history. Cultural differences speak much louder than political leanings. Right wing nationalism in Germany will not align with Russia, but French nationalism might.
After WWII I have a feeling Germany is not quite ready to embrace Russia after the atrocities they visited on the German people at the end of the war and visa versa. That was humanity at it's very worst.
Truth be told, we're not all that far behind Europe: http://www.startribune.com/st-paul-school-pulls-plug-on-celebrating-dominant-holidays/366834081/ By catering to not offending other cultures and being tolerant, we're sacrificing our own culture. Correct me if I wrong, but didn't the refugees who we are trying so hard not to offend, come here by choice? Why is it our culture that has to assimilate with them rather then visa versa?
No one is saying you can't celebrate it. The school is just not sponsoring the celebration. What's wrong with that?
Nothing. But are we really going to approach everything catering to the least common factor which may or may not actually exist because, just in case? From the article it sounds like more parents were upset that they stopped celebrating the holidays than the school's previous position, which it didnt sound like anyone complained about. So is the principal actually concerned or is he just exercising his power to satisfy his own politically correct nonsense? Sounds like a miserable way to approach everything. Again, I guess he's not wrong, but was anyone actually offended?
This is right up there with "zero tolerance". In an effort to never be held personally accountable or get in trouble, administrators are striving for a simple, "just following the rules" system that eliminates any need for them to think or make a call that can later be questioned. In that same way, they are trying to pro-actively eliminate any "social outrage" by not taking any chances of sponsoring or doing things that somebody, somewhere might get annoyed with and bitch about. It's starting to get to the point where their attempt to not piss anyone off is actually pissing people off.
Personally, I just chuckle at this stuff. In our infinite wisdom we sometimes believe we will rewrite human nature in the name of tolerance or "equality". You see it all the time: Crown and others post twitter posts from time to time from hard-line feminists who believe there is no longer any use for men and from ultra PC men who are essentially men in title only at this point. The point to me is not that all men must be the extreme of masculinity it is that we should not punish or demean masculine behavior just as we should not punish feminine behavior in men or masculine behavior in women. I truly do believe that tolerance and equality are great and virtuous but we really need to maintain a frame of reference. This is not how the rest of the world operates, tolerance and equality have little value in the places where these refugees come from. If you invite them in en masse, be prepared to put them in their place and force them to abide, otherwise don't complain when they destroy your world.
Their place. Let's see, their place could be among us if they choose to be or it could be back where they came from if they don't. Coincide? Coincide....When a society values equality and tolerance it should become the guest's imperative to conform to those norms (their place and abiding), if they cannot or will not then you must address it and put them in that place.
To go along with Oden's point... THIS is not assimilating to a host that allowed you to come to their home:
I'm still trying to figure out exactly when "Diversity", "Tolerance", and "Equality" became buzzwords for bashing straight white guys, who identify with being a guy, for having the nerve of existing in their tolerant, diverse world.
People upset that a group isn’t assimilating? Go figure, not like this hasn’t happened before. Let’s see... In the late 1800s, there was an influx of new immigrants coming to the United States. First, there were a large number of Chinese immigrants coming to the west coast, attracted by the gold rush in California and later working on the transcontinental railroad. Many of the people living here at the time were largely upset at these new immigrants because they “weren’t assimilating.” What was the solution? The Chinese Exclusion Act, which kept Chinese immigrants from coming to the U.S. What about those pesky Catholics who started to come here from Eastern and Southern Europe during the late 1800s? They started their own churches and there was a genuine fear of the Pope taking over the nation. In fact in the mid 1800s there was an entire political party (The “American” party or the Know-Nothings) who were dedicated entirely to a nativist (note: Native as in “White” not “Native American”) and anti-catholic sentiment, because they firmly believed that Catholics would destroy the nation. There was that other group that is based on a large anti-Catholic sentiment, too… . Those damn Catholics and their failure to assimilate. As more and more Southern and Eastern Europeans came to America, there was even more uproar about the Catholics and Jews. There was so much frustration a law was passed to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe that in 1924 we passed a law to drastically limit immigration from those regions. The law set a quota as 2% of the number of people from that country living in the nation in 1890. Why 1890? Because that was before all those Eastern and Southern Europeans started coming here. They kept speaking their own language and living in their own ethnic neighborhoods and wouldn’t assimilate. Ironically, the group we REALLY wanted to assimilate was the group that was here before us, the Native Americans. We passed the Dawes Act to split up Native American reservations (Consequently, they lost a tremendous amount of their land because of this law), we massacred Native Americans for practicing their religion (see also: Massacre at Wounded Knee), we sent Native Americans to special schools (often repurposed prisons) to force them to “assimilate” to our way of life, and it was not unusual to see corporal punishment used to ensure they acted like their white counterparts. None of this is to mention the millions of other ways we decimated Native American populations. The entirety of our nation was started when a group of violent white people showed up and started murdering anyone with red skin they saw, and proceeded to take over the nation. Then, believing it was their “god given” right to control the country, they expanded westward until the Native population was all but decimated and destroyed. Once we were done, we began to demand that anyone else that came here “assimilate” to our way of life, with the irony always being lost that we were the most violent mother fuckers on the planet at the time. Whats my point? Simple, really. All this talk of “they need to assimilate” or “They need to be more like us” is nothing new. It happened with every new group that has come to America, and even groups that were already here. Native Americans, Germans, Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Catholic, Jewish, Mexican… all have been told “assimilate, be more like us!” All faced controversy. All faced backlash. Political parties had been organized. Violence took place. With every single previous group, the white people felt justified in their calls for assimilation. They always claimed the others were savages, inferior, violent… none of this is new. None of this is different. All of this has happened before, all of it will happen again. History is pretty wonderful like that. Finally, to pre-empt all the calls that say “BUT BUT BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT TERRORISM RAPE!!” Andrew Jackson called out the Indians “Savage Habits” and considered Native Americans violent savages that would murder all white people if given the chance, hence they needed to be removed. This led to the Seminole Wars, Trail of Tears, not to mention the many other Indian wars that took place out west once Manifest Destiny kicked in, like... Native Americans attacked US Soldiers Italian Anarchists accused of murder There was the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor followed by the US putting Japanese Americans into internment camps I could go on and on about how whites justified Jim Crow laws to “protect white women” from rape by black men (note: First time I’ve used the systematic destruction of African American culture throughout the 1800s and early 1900s), or the plethora of other justifications (all boil down to "They're uncivilized/violent/taking our jobs/won't speak the language/social darwinism), but there were always justifications for all the above. Today it is Muslims. Ten years from now, it'll probably be some other group, who knows. Simple reality: there will ALWAYS be some group that Americans don't want to come here, for some reason or another. This is just another chapter in a history book that repeats the previous ones, only changing the names of the ethnic groups. As for Toytoy's comments above, no one is attacking white males for being white males. There is a real persecution complex amongst white males now-a-days, as if they are PERSONALLY being called out any time someone says something "PC." It is not that different than calling all Muslims "Savages" because some of them justify rape as in the picture above. That post comes up as a broad generalization about Muslims, and a Muslim may be upset about that post, to which people would say "suck it up," or "I wasn't talking about YOU personally, I meant THOSE Muslims." Well, maybe the PC people could say the same to you? They don't mean YOU personally, they mean "THOSE" white males. You may say "I know there is a difference between "good" Muslims and bad ones, while PC people may say "I know there is a difference between "Good" guys and "bad" ones. I fail to see the difference, except that in one YOU are part of the group being stereotyped, while in the second you are doing the stereotyping.
You were talking about forcing a group of people in "their place" then when asked where that was you said it's where they choose it to be...that still doesn't coincide. Playing a fucked up 40-second Youtube video doesn't answer the question either. Your comment below the video suggests that you think that those that don't follow some sort of (societal?) norms should be...what, put in jail? deported? shot? I honestly don't know.
A well written timeline of moments in American history people probably aren't very proud of. It points toward our true nature, human nature; we are flawed creatures, all of us. People will mistreat others for differences of opinion, beliefs, skin tone....many reasons; this notion has stood the test of time through human history and will probably continue on well beyond yours, mine, my children's and grand children's lifetimes. It seems that you are arguing that we should be ashamed of ourselves and change our ways and that is true but you discount the fact that this is human nature and how people are the world over. I'm pretty sure we could go through the history of other regions and find exactly the same stories with different actors. That isn't making excuses or explaining away past deeds, this is just a sober view of how the world actually works. If you accept that this is human nature and how people are the world over and not just here then why would you argue it is a good idea to bring more people together of such opposite cultures? Especially ones that show a propensity toward violent opposition to assimilating with their new countries culture? Your recount of American history shows you how Americans react to it, does it not?