>>8196829
I posit that OP is a faggot and sage goes in all fields

>>8196878
I'll fuck a guy and accept a blowie from anyone, but won't reciprocate.

The middle-aged woman can't create a realistic character of any gender.
Badly developed characters have existed in popular books long before Harry Potter.
"Destruction of the idea of "male" and male-identity in younger generations." This phrase is metaphorically a cloud. You sound like a /pol/ack who sees "degeneration" of your spooks everywhere. You can easily find the cause of this situation in a hundred other places.
Books can't influence a civilization's mindset that much anyway.

kys

>>8197015
>The middle-aged woman can't create a realistic character of any gender.
We aren't seeing a widespread war against femininity though.
>Badly developed characters have existed in popular books long before Harry Potter.
Name one that's had as much and as wide of a market saturation.
>"Destruction of the idea of "male" and male-identity in younger generations." This phrase is metaphorically a cloud.
Nebulous is the word you're looking for, and it's not.
>You sound like a /pol/ack who sees "degeneration" of your spooks everywhere.

Unfortunately, they're not always wrong, and it's rather intellectually dishonest to dismiss ideas out of hand because you generally dislike what you perceive to be the source. But to disabuse you of the notion that it's only weird MRAs who think something is going on that is damaging to males, Philip Zimbardo even wrote a book called the Death of Guys talking about his thoughts on the matter.

>You can easily find the cause of this situation in a hundred other places.

Contributing factor would be the more correct term. Again, just saying "you can find a hundred other causes" is intellectually dishonest because anyone with the first bit of sense knows that there are many, many causes and depending on how granular you want to get, you could even consider the number of causes to be infinite -- which does precisely nothing for discussion of the topic.

>Books can't influence a civilization's mindset that much anyway.

I'm not even going to point out the idiocy of this statement (Bible, Koran, Hadiths, etc.). I'm aware you're not really speaking about that sort of book, but even then you are taking a rather ahistorical view of books, plus you are purposefully ignoring the other media that this particular character has been in

>>8196829

>people model their masculinity on a children's book character

Jesus Christ you're a simple one. "Contributed" is sufficiently vague to render your point unassailable but also makes it entirely impotent.

But I take it you reject essentialism? The effect of testosterone is null and void, the effect of a fictional character crucial?

The real answer is that testosterone levels are plummeting due to environmental toxins, particularly xenoestrogens.

>>8197097
Tbh I was mostly shitposting there. I can probably pull some more shit out of my ass and call it a reply and then participate in a lengthy discussion with you but I'd rather finish this book I'm reading atm. I hope you don't mind that.

>>8196829
It didn't destroy MY male identity.
/thread

>>8197142
>Jesus Christ you're a simple one. "Contributed" is sufficiently vague to render your point unassailable but also makes it entirely impotent.

If you take it in the general sense, yes. I intended the more clear and precise sense of "contributing factor" but that was my fault for being unclear. What's beyond simple of you is to not catch the implication that it's a significant enough factor worthy of discussion.

>But I take it you reject essentialism? The effect of testosterone is null and void, the effect of a fictional character crucial?

You can accept both nature and nurture as explanations you know. To attempt to claim mutual exclusivity in regard to anything behavioral is simplistic to the point of idiocy.

>The real answer is that testosterone levels are plummeting due to environmental toxins, particularly xenoestrogens.
You're literally an idiot.