Is the current male passivity nothing but the result of the decades long war against men being men?

"I don't believe there has ever been a war against men being men"

That is because you have never been a man. A man gets told almost every day of his life that he is not acceptable. Any attempt at assertiveness goes immediately to a physical confrontation and the biggest person (male or female) almost always wins. We have an entire school system dedicated to teaching the little boys to stop acting like boys, sit the h*ll down and shut the h*ll up. I hear they won't even let the little lumps play outside any more.

But don't you think discipline is important for boys (men)?

Yes in general though would not agree with Russell on some of what he wrote.  And I am thinking too were our grandfathers (or even fathers) all that happy as people.  Many of them were very hard on themselves and were unable to enjoy the fruits of their labors. My own father built a very successful business but paid a heavy price in alcoholism and solitude and unhappiness.  But really he saw no other way open to him if he wanted to live up to what was expected of him. 

I hate Bertrand Russel with a passion. I don't think he was a great thinker. Nothing special about him. I think most of what he said was wrong. He wasn't predicting the future by being smart. He was a massive establishment insider who knew what was planned and was arrogant enough throw the plan in our face. He's saying it matter-of-factly, not warning us.

The world has always had problems. Every generation faces different challenges. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 19, 2017 3:26 PM MST

I generally like and agreed with much that Bertrand Russell wrote and think it was not without reason that he was widely acknowledged as one of the great geniuses of the Twentieth Century. But his primary field of expertise was as a mathematician where he made advances that are still widely relied upon in physics and elsewhere. I liked his treatise on "Why I am not a Christian." 
But he was also an alcoholic, womaniser and abuser of women. As he grew older and deteriorated, he lost empathy and understanding of emotions. The quote from 1953 which mentions Fiche looks at what was then the dominant zeitgeist in many households and school, but did not prove to be predictive of future trends in education, diet, medicine and mores. 
George Orwell in his "1984' was the social observer who really nailed his predictions correctly.
But for issues of men's liberation, Steve Bidulph is one of the top activists and his books make a great place to start in understanding the issues.
Although women commonly criticise men for all kinds of faults, most of them are faults that all humans are prone to. We tend to project onto others. For instance, when some sibling calls another "selfish" it's usually due to not getting what he or she wants. The major exploiters and abusers of men are other men - bosses who pay less than a liveable wage, poor and unsafe working conditions, the pushing of cheap and unhealthy fast foods as the only available foods in lunch canteens and elsewhere - the list of wrongs could fill an encyclopedia. Where women have been used as chattels, men's lives have been regarded as expendable cannon fodder in wars.
I think it's time we stopped viewing relations between the sexes as some kind of war, and began learning the techniques of better communication and understanding.

George Orwell was his penned name, his real name was Eric Blair, he was a student of Aldous Huxley at Eton, as you know Huxley wrote A Brave New World.  Aldous Huxley was the grandson of Thomas Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog), and his brother was Julian Huxley a eugenicist.

Thank you, Hartfire, for your comments which seem to be directed at me.  I certainly don't possess your learning but most of what I write comes from my experiences and those of others and from my observation.  But perhaps I need to clarify.  I would not regard male/female relationships as any kind of a "war" because to me that would be missing the whole point. We are, philosophically as well as actually, complementary opposites and don't exist one without the other.  Is currently unfashionable as well as I suppose politically incorrect now to say I am fulfilled and completed by my relationships with men but that is exactly how I feel.  Which does not mean I am incapable of acting and accomplishing things on my own.  There are always disagreements and fighting in relationships of course but once we allow them to run us then we lose sight of the fact that in essence we are only fighting ourselves and our fulfillment. 

To me "men being men" does not mean going out and being allowed to rape, murder, pillage , and plunder. Socialization and discipline are essential to society - which means people living together in peace.  Obviously we can't just do whatever we want to do or feel like doing because then there would be negative consequences for society.  But then think well what about us?  Is there a war on women being women?  We all must exist with various expectations from society, our communities, our families, our beliefs and our dreams.  And we all have the ability to make choices for ourselves and our family that reflect one or all of those.  And I think we all are faced with deciding for ourselves that as men or as women what kind of man or woman are we going to be? 

So although exploitation and abuse naturally exist, as consumers and autonomous beings we are not obliged to choose them for ourselves and our family.  We can choose something else and go elsewhere if that means enough to us and we are willing to make our own way.  Which is true really about everything in our lives.  I realized I could not make it or flourish in what I was brought up to be so I had to look elsewhere to find my own strengths and capabilities. 

I chose to be a Christian because I realized I was , by myself, powerless to save myself because of my sin.  Thus I am imperfect. Therefore my only possible salvation (becoming whole and acceptable to God)rests on the self-sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Just as a woman my wholeness in terms of humanity rests on my creative and successful interaction with a man or men. 

You seem to be under the apprehension that I posted something about clothing and grooming though I did not.  Nevertheless your comments are well taken.  But I do think that appearance is very important in whatever society and , again, those of us who don't conform to standards of beauty, manliness, etc. are obliged to develop other resources to succeed.  I've always gone for clean-cut men because to me that indicates efficiency and responsibility to others.  I was never a great beauty (or really any kind of a beauty!), pretty, or even cute - so I had to develop myself as an good and contributing companion and my own kind of efficiency in relationships. 

I find it very peculiar that people associate dress-style and grooming with ideas of masculinity or femininity.
Dress codes are nothing more than arbitrary cultural rules for conformity.
They have no intrinsic relationship to gender.
For centuries in Biblical times, men wore caftans while women wore trousers.
In South-East Asia many men and women still wear Sarongs. Being open to the air cools the testicles to help maintain fertility in a hot and humid climate. Before the invasion of whites, Australian Aboriginals typically went naked except for a covering of fat and kangaroo skin cloaks in the colder weather of the south; they had plenty of cultural sex differentiation in roles and behaviours, but no gender variation in apparel. In Japan, both men and women wore kimonos, while at the North Pole both men and women wore trousers. There are countless other examples of variations in cultural norms from all over the world.

In my view, clothes maketh neither the man nor the woman.

This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 19, 2017 2:34 PM MST