"They suck the masculine energy out of companies like vampires. Oh, and I don't mean to insult women. If you were insulted you don't get it"

It's not feminine like showing compassion and helping those who are weak and injured

Maybe he is trying to compensate.

I was thinking the other day that Zuckerberg is the only headline billionaire who is still married to his first wife. I wonder if they're having problems.

Normally I'd feel bad about putting baseless speculation like this on the internet, but Zuck says it's fine.

He should just take some damn viagra and leave us the H alone.

Promising to suck TSF as long as it takes.

Note to fact checkers, this statement may not be true, but you have my permission to copy this to every page on Facebook.

to essentially rip off his partners in developing Facebook.

He doesn't represent how I've felt my entire life.

And ultimately that is why Trump won. Dems put everything into the abortion issue. While that had a lot of energy from women, it also catalyzed the men who are threatened by women having agency. I was always afraid that was a big risk of what amounted to a single-issue campaign, and we are paying the price.

It is a real problem because, while almost all of us here believe strongly in women having agency over their bodies, we cannot allow that to be the primary message. It is just too threatening to too many millions of scared little men. And it is a particular problem when we can't seem to articulate in any consistent and persuasive terms, any other idea that we feel strongly about.

We had better figure out what we believe in and learn how to sell those ideas to the average American.

other than abortion?

And I'n not talking concepts. I'm talking about a real proposal that could be enacted as legislation. The only one I recall was something about first time home buyers.

Little ideas don't move the needle.

NO. SMALL. IDEAS.

That's not a criticism of Harris specifically. Democrats haven't broadly supported any big ideas since Apollo.

Trump had lots of specific ideas. They were all terrible, but there were bold and specific. A terrible idea beats no idea, every day of the week. And no, being AGAINST a bad idea is not the same thing as having your own bold vision.

We saw this problem in 2016 as well. The Republicans tell big, bold lies and make big, bold promises.

The Democrats try to tell the truth. Our candidates try to control expectations. They explain the details, the nuances. There's always "we hope to do such and so."

The American public has the attention span of a gnat. Many people don't read lengthy articles or books. Intellectual laziness has replaced the desire to learn the truth. People are angry, emotionally riled up. We've lost the sense of economic expansion and growing prosperity that average people felt after WWII. People feel that they're losing ground and they don't have patience for vague plans or nuances.

People are hungry for bold promises.

You wrote "People are hungry for bold promises."

Being honest and grounded in reality are not bad things. But that doesn't really motivate people. People are motivated by being challenged with big, bold ideas.

Democrats have this disease where we negotiate against ourselves. Let me give an example. Resolved: We should extend Medicare to people of any age by allowing those under age 65 simply to pay a premium that covers the ACTUAL COST of their age cohort (with no extra corporate profits, shareholder dividends and lavish executive salaries)

Democrats would come up with 100 reasons why this wouldn't work before the idea was stated in public.
* HHS can't handle the workload
* All the corporations would fight it
* How could we ever manage collections?
* Think of all the UHC workers that would lose their jobs
and so on.

It has literally been 60 years (JFK - Apollo or LBJ - Great Society) since Democrats had ANY big, bold ideas. The last 3 generations of Dems have mastered the art of negative thinking. It wasn't always this way. FDR was continuously on the march with big bold ideas.

We lost our way a long time ago. There are many good, smart progressives in the party today. We need to get rid of the ones who have done nothing but negative thinking for decades. They are doing no good for anybody.

I don't understand it. I feel as if there is a missing piece I don't know about. I suspect it has to do with needing corporate money in order to get elected.

Citizens United makes it almost impossible to have a democracy.

that is on his head, how would he know?

He's just another megat kissing trump's ass, as if ether he or draft avoider trump knew masculinity at all.

Billions and never heard of hair styllist/barber makeover.

These oligarchs actually have few of the traditional masculine strengths and virtues. They aren't responsible, honest, loyal, stoic, brave, unselfish, risktaking, protective.... they are just arrogant. That's it.

Hyper masculinity is associated with fascism. The captains of business are all falling in line. When it comes to money or democracy, the ultra rich will always pick their money. Kamala didn’t pan out, so it’s on to whatever insanity Mango Tits provides.

.... dealing with industry competitors. Alpha males are thought to have that killer instinct that give business that needed edge to out wit, out fox, and out perform their contemporaries.

Less woke, less empathy, less compassion. More kill, ravage, kill some more, then totally vanquish.

Women just don't have that inate kill drive within and coded into their DNA. So it makes them deficient in the game for rampant and cut throat competition.

So Fascists think.

It means they want the 1850s again

and wants to hire more trans and binary applicants.

As a proportion, how many women listen to Rogan's show?

Zuck is just pandering to Rogan's masculine, sub-average-IQ audience.

A "masculine energy" type I used to work for had an engraved plaque with that saying on the wall behind his desk. Toxic, toxic, toxic!

(Although he did take all the male employees in that office to a strip-joint for his birthday. He felt like he had to coach us on how to handle the lap dance he treated us to. Although it was only one dance by one dancer to be shared among 7 of us. So I guess I only got 1/7th of a lap dance. Toxic. And cheap, too.)

is in working alongside women? Does he feels that having more men in the office will minimize and outnumber the accomplishments of the women, or will they protect him from contact with powerful women that frighten him.
The men who do not aggressively minimize women in the workplace are creating this neutered zone, this area of no resistance to the advancement of a woman's creative or successful endeavors.
Because there must always a turn of the knife, another enemy, another obstacle, he now comes for the professional women. What do they say, first they came for the socialists?

It's minimizing men too.

This statement is trumpian double talk: “It’s like you want feminine energy, you want masculine energy,”

It could be a sign that corporate cultures will be changing the next few years to become less tolerant of tolerance.

But these days it just reinforces that women are only good for making babies, and male ones at that.

there need be way fewer men than women to make babies.
So then, most men are redundant. (tongue in cheek)

as a technical director in the production department, because "the men couldn't fart in the room with a woman present." I think that's what he means. I was, however, suitable for switiching director to switch between programming and commercials.

Say the magic words and you get likes and an invite to a future show?

Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2025, 09:24 AM - Edit history (2)

I think it means he's fallen completely for the man-o-sphere culture that is not fully on DUers radars. It's a sign that Zuckerberg has or is posturing like he has completely fallen for the algorithm that drives men into incel adjacent content.

For corporate culture, I think he means more business events at strip clubs, more personal attacks of people perceived as inferior at work, less tolerance for "mental health days,” more foul language, and generally a more aggressive environment.

I wonder if it will transfer to work fashion. More 80's Wall Street looks, more leather, less business casual, etc.

I forgot about that one

And wanted to hear their thoughts on Zuckerberg's definition.

You sweatpants-wearing, keyboard commando!

I was born and raised in Texas to a career military family. I’m a third generation war veteran. I played school football (again: in TEXAS!), and served in the Army as a hard-drinking, rough and ready, grease-monkey tank crewman. How’s that for “masculine energy”? And I’m a bleeding heart, peace and love, campfire, kum-bah-ya LIBERAL!

Liberal till I DIE, motherfucker!

Take your “masculine energy”, and shove it!

The guy looks like Skreech from Saved by the Bell

I'm getting a strong, soon to be divorced dad vibe from him.

is worried about the size of his penis.

he started FB in order to perv on female students through his computer screen instead of interacting with them like human beings.

Who can't get it up.

It's seems like there's a strong contingent of RWers who have this romanticized idea of what "manhood" means. These folks would look at movies with stereotypical a-holes and jocks as villains from the 80's and actually try to emulate the behavior of the bad guy. Why else would some smoothbrained, asshole like Joe Rogan have such a massive fan base?

What did his wife see in this clown?

Zuckie-poo

Looks like an alien and sounds like one too.

Got that real man vibe, right....

Results are they become their asshole.

Zuck the shmuck renamed his company with the "Meta" moniker and invested billions trying to suck us all into a virtual world where we would all appear as cartoon avatars. I can not think of any concept which is more contrary to the masculine lust for taking on the challenges of reality.

I did not know about the cartoon avatars.

These men operate at a young child level.

The aggressive body parts and some missing body parts.

Dangerous and aggressive, if someone drew these figures in my office when I was a therapist
I would be quite concerned.

All Rogan and his listeners will remember is Zuckerberg saying "masculine energy" all the news headlines will mention "masculine energy" and it will "mean" whatever the Trumpers want it to mean...

Why would people expect antlers from the jerk.

To "leaders" like zucker, corporations are under too many restrictions to dominate female employees. The women can file civil suits, the feds or state can bring charges, and men can't fire or intimidate employees at any level.

It's all about power and control.

When I first enetered the workforce in the late 70's, women had secondary roles. Low level managers and supervisors, but nobody in senior positions. Young women were hired in as secretaries and other traditionally female roles, absolutely subservient to male managers. Many were preyed upon by players with power over them.

Sexual harassment was common. Office drug parties and sex assault weren't unheard of. For the most part, there were no protections.

That's what the zucker wants to get back to.

money, he feels like his opinions are important.

I think not.

Fetishization of STEM was a mistake. It produces an extremely limited worldview that is susceptible to the dumbest of retrogressive concepts. If an undergraduate talked this way you'd think he was an idiot. This is one of the richest and most influential people on the planet. Dangerous and embarrassing.