Jud Horras | We Should NOT Reject Traditional Masculinity (6/6) | Oxford Union

SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-unio...
The Motion: This House Rejects Traditional Masculinity.
Jud Horras closes the case for the Opposition, as the sixth and final speaker in the debate.
Jud Horras is currently President and CEO of the North American Intrafraternity Conference. He has worked in the fraternity administration at Beta Theta Pi since his graduation from Iowa State University.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

[@OxfordUnion]

Watch the full debate here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJ3Qaa2Yrch6d5o

[@VisionClearly]

Unfortunately, this is not the FULL debate link, it is (1 out 6).

[@syedahmedshaheer117]

what was the verdict?

[@tafferski]

"Those traits are not unique to men. They're expressed differently in women." Truth bomb.

[@kamalclifton]

Yeah, that one caught me off guard.

[@OXHAMMERSTONE_NYC]

FACTS !

[@kassaken6521]

11 months later, huge truth bomb, aftermath is still in effect

[@sban2009]

i was expecting an applause after that :)

[@AmnaKhan-iq5wt]

the traits are part of traditional masculinity, as a requirement, nobody is saying that women can't be arrogant or powerful but that it isn't accepted as 'feminine'

[@ericfeldkamp3788]

"reject arrogance and power, which isn't a trait unique to men" was the absolute best line spoken in this debate. Excellent summation.

[@danstewart2770]

The best description of masculinity that comes to mind listening to this. It's a quote by the founder of the United Farm Workers union, Cesar Chavez. "When we are really honest with ourselves we must admit that our lives are all that really belong to us, so it is how we use our lives that determines what kind of men we are. It is my deepest belief that the truest act courage, the strongest act of manliness is to sacrifice ourselves in service of a just cause. To be a man is to suffer for others. God help us be men." -Cesar Chavez

[@StrongMindedCoaching]

great quote!

[@AnirudhMurali9999]

"they are expressed differently in women" truth bomb right there. a desire for power resides in men and women

[@GodBlade132]

I just looked up the results and I'm astounded to find out that the motion to "reject traditional masculinity" was carried....

[@ecxstasy347]

WHAT

[@thedoubtfuls]

of course it would. even the opposition was apologetic.

[@steven2183]

I think it's because people conflated or confused traditional for toxic. Not all traditional masculinity is toxic, similarly to how femininity isn't always graceful....both of which seem more like gender stereotypes rather than defining attributes

[@DrKrapulax]

I can only imagine feminists' reaction to men saying they reject their version of femininity... The sheer gall of these hateful bigots is staggering.

[@karenpearson1207]

DrKrapulax I know!!! Can you imagine the outcry. I think someone should start a movement.

[@UNOwen-uw8ow]

Just think about what'd happen if the title were reversed in gender. It'd be labeled misogynistic and Oxford Union would have to express deep apology. Such hypocrisy..

[@girlwriteswhat]

So the pros won the debate. How sad.

[@DouglasMoran]

Of course the pros won -- there wasn't anyone arguing the other side. Did you hear any of the supposed cons say even one of "Duty", "Honor", "Discipline", "Sacrifice", "Leadership" or any of the other characteristics of traditional masculinity. All they could see was power-seeking and abusive behaviors.

[@girlwriteswhat]

@@DouglasMoran I don't think any of them have done the truly deep dive to discover how academia, and as a result the broader culture, has de-sexed nearly all of the masculine virtues. We can't say duty and honor are masculine virtues because we also expect these things of women sometimes. Maybe to a lesser degree or in different contexts, but the conformity to masculine norms inventory, which is being used by academics and the American Psychological Association, was constructed to isolate characteristics that are EXCLUSIVELY expected of men. This is why "being nurturing" and "being a faithful partner", which the majority of men surveyed say is fundamental to their positive masculine self-identity, didn't make it onto the inventory, while "playboy" (important to just 1% of men) and "violence" (as represented by the statement "I am willing to get into a physical fight if necessary") did make it on there. I would suggest that "I am willing to get into a physical fight if necessary" is more exemplary of courage than of violence, but courage has been de-sexed so they were stuck with violence. Another misleading entry on the inventory is "winning" as exemplified by the statement, "In general, I will do anything to win." According to the academic who developed the inventory, the focus group was batting around the idea of "being successful", but too many women said they also felt pressure to be successful, so that was de-sexed. They were left with "winning", and who knows how many men answered in the affirmative to the statement "In general, I will do anything to win," (maybe it was the same 1% who are "playboys")? But what I DO know is that personality tests show that men are more rule-conscious than women are, and men who are caught cheating, lying or otherwise breaking the rules for personal gain (doping in sports, or biting someone's ear off in the boxing ring) aren't typically viewed as manly by other men. They're viewed as failed men who couldn't win in a fair fight. As an example, my man used to play Midget AAA hockey when he was in his mid teens. He had an ongoing personality conflict with the captain of his team, which culminated in fisticuffs. During the fight, the captain's older brother grabbed my guy from behind so the captain could pummel the crap out of him and win the fight. The captain didn't speak to my man at all for the rest of the season, which my man thought was weird. At the end of the season, my man got MVP for the entire league, and he discovered later that the captain had actually spearheaded the effort to have that happen and had been his biggest promoter. This guy was so ashamed of "winning" due to an unfair advantage, he couldn't even bring himself to face my man, and instead tried to make amends in another way. These are elite hockey players (the most toxically masculine of males, after all), and even they're not willing to do anything to win. And if and when they do cheat and win when they shouldn't have, they feel ashamed of it. This entire paradigm of "what it means to be a man" that's been created in (feminist) academia and promulgated throughout the culture, is perhaps one of the worst and most far-reaching cases of maligning an entire group ever. For Christ's sake, the "Grievance Studies Hoaxers" rewrote a chapter of "Mein Kampf", replacing "Aryans" with "women" and "Jews" with "men", and it was accepted for publication in a feminist academic journal! And the insane thing is that it flies in the face of an entire canon of literature that celebrates positive masculinity and abhors men's excesses and failings, written almost entirely *by men,* going all the way back to the earliest known story, The Epic of Gilgamesh. I'm absolutely astounded, and horrified, that so many people appear to believe it.

[@DouglasMoran]

@@girlwriteswhat Wow. What a great reply. What I just realized was that, in the various defenses of Traditional Masculinity that I have listened to, none has cited the mottos and mission statements of the bastions of TM -- easy example: the military academies -- as evidence of what are the top values. Just a thought for those involved in the debates and presentations.

[@danstewart2770]

I reject the proposition. But, while the presentations in favor of the proposition were totally unpersuasive, I have to admit the arguments against the proposition really failed to make the case. Any of them might have been confused for arguments in favor. Very, very disappointing.

[@konroh2]

They needed someone like Jordan Peterson to argue for the proven innate differences.

[@thedoubtfuls]

while i agree with you, i find your comment unpersuasive, such that it fails to make the case.

[@Andyp12]

The position(s) against the proposition seemed to operate (from a lack of challenge) on the bad strategy of presuming the proposition's core premises to be true, that rape culture is a prominent or even real aspect of modern culture in nations like the UK. Or that toxic forms of masculinity are somehow a standard and prevalent aspect of men and their engagement with the world. They were on the right track but undermined themselves by not addressing/challenging some of the core assumptions/assertions of the proposition and in doing so they made every argument look like whataboutism, which is easily ignored or trivialised, especially if you are claiming moral righteousness, which the proposition clearly was. It's a hard subject to have any kind of reasoned discussion about, though, due to the accumulated baggage and misinformation that can exist from all different angles (not just the ones talking about toxic masculinity or rape culture). People may think statistics are their ally, but reducing examination to numbers has never been an appealing way to sway those in the grip of their own ethical crusade; they are predisposed to reject this sort of thinking outright, regardless of what any data might say. And yet it might be the only real recourse we have to an honest debate and discussion. Also, going back to it, whataboutism is all that you are left with when numerical data is removed as an option, because then every argument defaults to perspective, and perspective is so easy to manipulate and is subject to acts of whimsy in the individual. But, having said all that, I think the Oxford Union does a good job and tries a lot harder than most.

[@AvatarOfBhaal]

We should reject bad subject matters for debate. You're only goading a flame war between oppinionists. Surely there's little to no valuable outcome to a debate framed in such a toxic manner? I'd rather not endorse or reject someones values based on vague concepts.

[@scatton61]

So the only speaker who made sense was Martin

[@truelightseeker]

Now that is one hell of a speech

[@WaaDoku]

From this playlist I'm looking at it's pretty obvious to see that all counter argument people have been given less time to talk than the reject traditional masculinity people. Shouldn't that be kinda equal?

[@AmnaKhan-iq5wt]

they have a time limit, just had less to say

[@christopherthorkon3997]

I loved the way the lady in blue winced at the mention of pig manure. I am fairly certain she has never had to do such work in her life.

[@kamalclifton]

Masculinity will 'never' be toxic, neither will Femininity ever be; they are both divine. When we see a man beating up on a woman - in my part of the world at least - we often conclude that~that 'boi has lost his masculinity'; that's because beating on a woman is not 'masculine' so the 'toxic' can't connect with it. The same can be said for a woman who we view as abrasive, uncleanly, etc., we tend to classify as a woman who has lost her femininity. So pick at that, and extract out the bad things that both men and women do and you will get a well rounded picture of what masculinity, and femininity - by definition - is supposed to look like.

[@Chumppi]

36 minutes vs. 26 minutes - why the huge gap in oration time?

[@cordeliajin6356]

he speaks well but the entire speech has literally nothing to do with traditional masculinity. It just says that blaming men is not good

[@cordeliajin6356]

and that he rejects power-seeking and arrogance--which are precisely traits of traditional masculinity

[@smalls9852]

That's so true. Those traits are not exclusively masculine.

[@StraussBR]

I almost think I could have made a better job to defend this motion they did not challenge the underlying narrative of social constructivism and how that "science" failed to achieve positive results so far so it should not be guiding our decisions

[@safwaan131]

This debate needed Dr Jordan Peterson..

[@tafferski]

Yes, a person who actually knows the data.

[@safwaan131]

@@TriggerHappyASMR you high?

[@MadCapDarkglobe]

What are these kids learning in school. These teachers should be fired!!!

[@savage_rishabh2255]

Best of all he nailed it👏👏

[@pushpika2005rc]

So.. What happened in the vote? who won?

[@AbdullahLodhi_]

We should notg reject Traditional Masculinity wons the proposition

[@eugeinho]

what was the result???

[@sourcescience]

BoomBaby no it doesn’t, it states the proposition.

[@awadheshjha5898]

Toxic Masculinity Debate This House Rejects Traditional Masculinity TT19 Week 1 Motion Carried, The motion was accepted www.oxford-union.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Debate%20Results%20TT19_0.pdf

[@ak9200]

Which team won?

[@Danny_088]

"reject traditional masculinity "

[@gopalashetty6405]

I don't like American English accent. I like British accent

[@Alhaweeee]

Solid!

[@SikanderG]

8 minutes of my life wasted.

[@FEAREDTHANLOVED]

Thats why you'll be a nobody for the rest of your life. Enjoy

[@OMAR-vq3yb]

Well that was pointless.

[@shubhamverma1774]

👍👍

[@newmannewmanz7110]

What an UTTER nonsense by this GUY!.. I'll tell you, GOOD FAMILY and GOOD SELF DISCIPLINE will help everybody.

[@MichElle-sd6gj]

Real Men will be Real Men. Real Women will be Real Women. Weirdos we know not.

[@booklover3959]

And who defines who is the weirdo? What if you Mich become defined as the weirdo? Will you change your mind then?

[@atifrashid2338]

Women in the room, some have really nice, smooth creamy feet.

[@barisakdogan2274]

First

[@uglyjoetreez]

5:30 " humility and competence". FINALLY!