[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hell, look what we’ve done to state recognized marriage! SOME Men and MOST women will have sex. [/quote]
Fixed that for ya.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage has to be made an attractive alternative for men, not women. Women will always want to get married.
We’ve done the latter in recent years.
[/quote]
“Get married! You can stay home and raise the kids between bouts of Call of Duty and action movie watching while she’s stuck in a monotonous career just trying to put food on the table!”
There is no making marriage more attractive to men, while preserving ‘masculinity,’ outside of traditional roles. He/She who is the bread-winner, or at least shares in this responsibility, isn’t likely to demure to your masculinity (which is little more than taking on a leadership/alpha status). Otherwise, it’s up to men to be willing to take on the Suzi…oops, Johnny home-maker role. Or, at least, satisfy themselves with being nothing more than cooperative and equal partners in the home.
Death of masculinity in the progressive era? Nah, you don’t say!
Where do you folks think masculinity still has it’s strongest foothold? Where are these pockets of conservation to be found? Hmm? Oh, I’m sure there are folks frequenting this site who both lament the fading of ‘masculinity,’ yet ridicule the types of beliefs, norms, and values that preserve such a role as the masculine in islands weathering the progressive typhoon.
Forget it, outside of those cultures–which increasingly move towards sub-culture status–masculinity is doomed. The new paradigm will be, well, monoinity. Femininity and masculinity will move from the opposite female and male poles (respectively) and converge. Probably closer to the femininity side of things.
You’re a potential gamete donator. And science might be able to cheaply, safely, and en masse remove even that role in the not-too-distant-future. The ‘liberated’ and educated woman doesn’t need all the baggage that comes with your masculinity.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage has to be made an attractive alternative for men, not women. Women will always want to get married.
We’ve done the latter in recent years.
[/quote]
“Get married! You can stay home and raise the kids between bouts of Call of Duty and action movie watching while she’s stuck in a monotonous career just trying to put food on the table!”
There is no making marriage more attractive to men, while preserving ‘masculinity,’ outside of traditional roles. He/She who is the bread-winner, or at least shares in this responsibility, isn’t likely to demure to your masculinity (which is little more than taking on a leadership/alpha status). Otherwise, it’s up to men to be willing to take on the Suzi…oops, Johnny home-maker role. Or, at least, satisfy themselves with being nothing more than cooperative and equal partners in the home.
Death of masculinity in the progressive era? Nah, you don’t say!
Where do you folks think masculinity still has it’s strongest foothold? Where are these pockets of conservation to be found? Hmm? Oh, I’m sure there are folks frequenting this site who both lament the fading of ‘masculinity,’ yet ridicule the types of beliefs, norms, and values that preserve such a role as the masculine in islands weathering the progressive typhoon.
Forget it, outside of those cultures–which increasingly move towards sub-culture status–masculinity is doomed. The new paradigm will be, well, monoinity. Femininity and masculinity will move from the opposite female and male poles (respectively) and converge. Probably closer to the femininity side of things.
You’re a potential gamete donator. And science might be able to cheaply, safely, and en masse remove even that role in the not-too-distant-future. The ‘liberated’ and educated woman doesn’t need all the baggage that comes with your masculinity.
[/quote]
Provide us an outline on how you think society should be run with respect intergender relations.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage has to be made an attractive alternative for men, not women. Women will always want to get married.
We’ve done the latter in recent years.
[/quote]
“Get married! You can stay home and raise the kids between bouts of Call of Duty and action movie watching while she’s stuck in a monotonous career just trying to put food on the table!”
There is no making marriage more attractive to men, while preserving ‘masculinity,’ outside of traditional roles. He/She who is the bread-winner, or at least shares in this responsibility, isn’t likely to demure to your masculinity (which is little more than taking on a leadership/alpha status). Otherwise, it’s up to men to be willing to take on the Suzi…oops, Johnny home-maker role. Or, at least, satisfy themselves with being nothing more than cooperative and equal partners in the home.
Death of masculinity in the progressive era? Nah, you don’t say!
Where do you folks think masculinity still has it’s strongest foothold? Where are these pockets of conservation to be found? Hmm? Oh, I’m sure there are folks frequenting this site who both lament the fading of ‘masculinity,’ yet ridicule the types of beliefs, norms, and values that preserve such a role as the masculine in islands weathering the progressive typhoon.
Forget it, outside of those cultures–which increasingly move towards sub-culture status–masculinity is doomed. The new paradigm will be, well, monoinity. Femininity and masculinity will move from the opposite female and male poles (respectively) and converge. Probably closer to the femininity side of things.
You’re a potential gamete donator. And science might be able to cheaply, safely, and en masse remove even that role in the not-too-distant-future. The ‘liberated’ and educated woman doesn’t need all the baggage that comes with your masculinity.
[/quote]
Oh, the shame! Being a cooperative and equal partner in the home!
Listen Tommy Toughnuts- You might be educated but you certainly aren’t very smart if you think being a cooperative and equal partner in a successful venture (making a home,raising a family) is somehow emasculating. Quite the opposite actually. What you end up with is both partners feeling good about what they are doing.
Now go find yourself some weak willed girly woman who went to college to find a husband and will end up banging a young version of me while you’re at work and he’s supposed to be trimming your trees.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage has to be made an attractive alternative for men, not women. Women will always want to get married.
We’ve done the latter in recent years.
[/quote]
“Get married! You can stay home and raise the kids between bouts of Call of Duty and action movie watching while she’s stuck in a monotonous career just trying to put food on the table!”
There is no making marriage more attractive to men, while preserving ‘masculinity,’ outside of traditional roles. He/She who is the bread-winner, or at least shares in this responsibility, isn’t likely to demure to your masculinity (which is little more than taking on a leadership/alpha status). Otherwise, it’s up to men to be willing to take on the Suzi…oops, Johnny home-maker role. Or, at least, satisfy themselves with being nothing more than cooperative and equal partners in the home.
Death of masculinity in the progressive era? Nah, you don’t say!
Where do you folks think masculinity still has it’s strongest foothold? Where are these pockets of conservation to be found? Hmm? Oh, I’m sure there are folks frequenting this site who both lament the fading of ‘masculinity,’ yet ridicule the types of beliefs, norms, and values that preserve such a role as the masculine in islands weathering the progressive typhoon.
Forget it, outside of those cultures–which increasingly move towards sub-culture status–masculinity is doomed. The new paradigm will be, well, monoinity. Femininity and masculinity will move from the opposite female and male poles (respectively) and converge. Probably closer to the femininity side of things.
You’re a potential gamete donator. And science might be able to cheaply, safely, and en masse remove even that role in the not-too-distant-future. The ‘liberated’ and educated woman doesn’t need all the baggage that comes with your masculinity.
[/quote]
Oh, the shame! Being a cooperative and equal partner in the home!
Listen Tommy Toughnuts- You might be educated but you certainly aren’t very smart if you think being a cooperative and equal partner in a successful venture (making a home,raising a family) is somehow emasculating. Quite the opposite actually. What you end up with is both partners feeling good about what they are doing.
Now go find yourself some weak willed girly woman who went to college to find a husband and will end up banging a young version of me while you’re at work and he’s supposed to be trimming your trees.
[/quote]
I’m not the one worried about ‘masculinity.’
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage has to be made an attractive alternative for men, not women. Women will always want to get married.
We’ve done the latter in recent years.
[/quote]
“Get married! You can stay home and raise the kids between bouts of Call of Duty and action movie watching while she’s stuck in a monotonous career just trying to put food on the table!”
There is no making marriage more attractive to men, while preserving ‘masculinity,’ outside of traditional roles. He/She who is the bread-winner, or at least shares in this responsibility, isn’t likely to demure to your masculinity (which is little more than taking on a leadership/alpha status). Otherwise, it’s up to men to be willing to take on the Suzi…oops, Johnny home-maker role. Or, at least, satisfy themselves with being nothing more than cooperative and equal partners in the home.
Death of masculinity in the progressive era? Nah, you don’t say!
Where do you folks think masculinity still has it’s strongest foothold? Where are these pockets of conservation to be found? Hmm? Oh, I’m sure there are folks frequenting this site who both lament the fading of ‘masculinity,’ yet ridicule the types of beliefs, norms, and values that preserve such a role as the masculine in islands weathering the progressive typhoon.
Forget it, outside of those cultures–which increasingly move towards sub-culture status–masculinity is doomed. The new paradigm will be, well, monoinity. Femininity and masculinity will move from the opposite female and male poles (respectively) and converge. Probably closer to the femininity side of things.
You’re a potential gamete donator. And science might be able to cheaply, safely, and en masse remove even that role in the not-too-distant-future. The ‘liberated’ and educated woman doesn’t need all the baggage that comes with your masculinity.
[/quote]
Provide us an outline on how you think society should be run with respect intergender relations.[/quote]
Not my concern. I’m pretty much a member of the sub-culture now.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage has to be made an attractive alternative for men, not women. Women will always want to get married.
We’ve done the latter in recent years.
[/quote]
“Get married! You can stay home and raise the kids between bouts of Call of Duty and action movie watching while she’s stuck in a monotonous career just trying to put food on the table!”
There is no making marriage more attractive to men, while preserving ‘masculinity,’ outside of traditional roles. He/She who is the bread-winner, or at least shares in this responsibility, isn’t likely to demure to your masculinity (which is little more than taking on a leadership/alpha status). Otherwise, it’s up to men to be willing to take on the Suzi…oops, Johnny home-maker role. Or, at least, satisfy themselves with being nothing more than cooperative and equal partners in the home.
Death of masculinity in the progressive era? Nah, you don’t say!
Where do you folks think masculinity still has it’s strongest foothold? Where are these pockets of conservation to be found? Hmm? Oh, I’m sure there are folks frequenting this site who both lament the fading of ‘masculinity,’ yet ridicule the types of beliefs, norms, and values that preserve such a role as the masculine in islands weathering the progressive typhoon.
Forget it, outside of those cultures–which increasingly move towards sub-culture status–masculinity is doomed. The new paradigm will be, well, monoinity. Femininity and masculinity will move from the opposite female and male poles (respectively) and converge. Probably closer to the femininity side of things.
You’re a potential gamete donator. And science might be able to cheaply, safely, and en masse remove even that role in the not-too-distant-future. The ‘liberated’ and educated woman doesn’t need all the baggage that comes with your masculinity.
[/quote]
Provide us an outline on how you think society should be run with respect intergender relations.[/quote]
Not my concern. I’m pretty much a member of the sub-culture now.
[/quote]
Not going to bite at all huh?
How about you tell us about the inner workings of which you belong to.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
^ That dude makes an excellent feminist.
On the article though, it isn’t clear to me whether or not she sees manhood or manliness as necessary or virtuous. Even the elitists she’s criticizing will sometimes admit that it is necessary, but not virtuous. So is she simply honestly stating the way it is viewed by her peers, or trying to amend the status of manhood from necessary to virtuous?
[/quote]
I think her main point is recognizing that it exists; that there are inherent differences between the sexes and we need to accept that and act accordingly. Whether or not it is virtuous or necessary is irrelevant. The radical feminists, who dominate the movement, avoid arguing about necessity and virtue by claiming that masculinity does not exist except as something man created. [/quote]
If anybody ever doubted that there was such a thing as “masculinity” that existed naturally–and I have never doubted that–all they need do is listen to an airing of an episode of NPR’s “This American Life” where they talk to a post-op/post-hormone female to male transgender. She talks extensively about what started happening to her when she was put on Testosterone for the first time and about how much different it is, how much the drive imparts. Fascinating, actually.
The stuff is in our marrow, not just the culture. Literally, in our cells. Whether it is expressed or not has nothing to do with it being there, in our DNA.[/quote]
It’s funny the way you put that. My son (whom I know I blather on about enough already) since he was 10 mos. old loves to engage in feats of strength, especially during growth spurts/hormone surges. He tips his walker and other toys up and over strongman tire flip style and cheers himself when he topples them and grabs on to doorjambs and table legs and pulls with all of his might while letting out a wicked little baby “Whooaaaa” exertion grunt.
Its absolutely hilarious and at the same time interesting to me because he seems to have an innate urge to do those things. I haven’t taken him to lift with me yet, so I know that it isn’t a learned behavior or imitation.
[/quote]
It is. I think it is absolutely one of the greatest crimes we can perpetrate as a society to attempt to train that out of a boy (or if not totally, then squelch it). TC had some words on this subject once in one of his famous Dog articles.
[/quote]
Back in the day, I remember some of the moms in our neighborhood being appalled at my son’s toy pistol and sheriff’s badge. They were not going to allow toy guns of any kind, and asked me not to let him bring them to the park.
It wasn’t long before some of those same people had their boys making “guns” out of sticks and chasing each other around with them, and building swords from cardboard and duct tape. I probably shouldn’t have taken pleasure in seeing all the violence, but I did.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage has to be made an attractive alternative for men, not women. Women will always want to get married.
We’ve done the latter in recent years.
[/quote]
“Get married! You can stay home and raise the kids between bouts of Call of Duty and action movie watching while she’s stuck in a monotonous career just trying to put food on the table!”
There is no making marriage more attractive to men, while preserving ‘masculinity,’ outside of traditional roles. He/She who is the bread-winner, or at least shares in this responsibility, isn’t likely to demure to your masculinity (which is little more than taking on a leadership/alpha status). Otherwise, it’s up to men to be willing to take on the Suzi…oops, Johnny home-maker role. Or, at least, satisfy themselves with being nothing more than cooperative and equal partners in the home.
Death of masculinity in the progressive era? Nah, you don’t say!
Where do you folks think masculinity still has it’s strongest foothold? Where are these pockets of conservation to be found? Hmm? Oh, I’m sure there are folks frequenting this site who both lament the fading of ‘masculinity,’ yet ridicule the types of beliefs, norms, and values that preserve such a role as the masculine in islands weathering the progressive typhoon.
Forget it, outside of those cultures–which increasingly move towards sub-culture status–masculinity is doomed. The new paradigm will be, well, monoinity. Femininity and masculinity will move from the opposite female and male poles (respectively) and converge. Probably closer to the femininity side of things.
You’re a potential gamete donator. And science might be able to cheaply, safely, and en masse remove even that role in the not-too-distant-future. The ‘liberated’ and educated woman doesn’t need all the baggage that comes with your masculinity.
[/quote]
Oh, the shame! Being a cooperative and equal partner in the home!
Listen Tommy Toughnuts- You might be educated but you certainly aren’t very smart if you think being a cooperative and equal partner in a successful venture (making a home,raising a family) is somehow emasculating. Quite the opposite actually. What you end up with is both partners feeling good about what they are doing.
Now go find yourself some weak willed girly woman who went to college to find a husband and will end up banging a young version of me while you’re at work and he’s supposed to be trimming your trees.
[/quote]
I’m not the one worried about ‘masculinity.’
[/quote]
You didn’t write that rant lamenting the sub-culture status of masculinity that I quoted?
So where is this bastion of masculinity, this sub-culture that you are now part of?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Marriage has to be made an attractive alternative for men, not women. Women will always want to get married.
We’ve done the latter in recent years.
[/quote]
“Get married! You can stay home and raise the kids between bouts of Call of Duty and action movie watching while she’s stuck in a monotonous career just trying to put food on the table!”
There is no making marriage more attractive to men, while preserving ‘masculinity,’ outside of traditional roles. He/She who is the bread-winner, or at least shares in this responsibility, isn’t likely to demure to your masculinity (which is little more than taking on a leadership/alpha status). Otherwise, it’s up to men to be willing to take on the Suzi…oops, Johnny home-maker role. Or, at least, satisfy themselves with being nothing more than cooperative and equal partners in the home.
Death of masculinity in the progressive era? Nah, you don’t say!
Where do you folks think masculinity still has it’s strongest foothold? Where are these pockets of conservation to be found? Hmm? Oh, I’m sure there are folks frequenting this site who both lament the fading of ‘masculinity,’ yet ridicule the types of beliefs, norms, and values that preserve such a role as the masculine in islands weathering the progressive typhoon.
Forget it, outside of those cultures–which increasingly move towards sub-culture status–masculinity is doomed. The new paradigm will be, well, monoinity. Femininity and masculinity will move from the opposite female and male poles (respectively) and converge. Probably closer to the femininity side of things.
You’re a potential gamete donator. And science might be able to cheaply, safely, and en masse remove even that role in the not-too-distant-future. The ‘liberated’ and educated woman doesn’t need all the baggage that comes with your masculinity.
[/quote]
Oh, the shame! Being a cooperative and equal partner in the home!
Listen Tommy Toughnuts- You might be educated but you certainly aren’t very smart if you think being a cooperative and equal partner in a successful venture (making a home,raising a family) is somehow emasculating. Quite the opposite actually. What you end up with is both partners feeling good about what they are doing.
Now go find yourself some weak willed girly woman who went to college to find a husband and will end up banging a young version of me while you’re at work and he’s supposed to be trimming your trees.
[/quote]
I’m not the one worried about ‘masculinity.’
[/quote]
You didn’t write that rant lamenting the sub-culture status of masculinity that I quoted?
So where is this bastion of masculinity, this sub-culture that you are now part of?
[/quote]
No, I didn’t write a rant lamenting the sub-culture status of masculinity. I wrote in response to others lamenting that masculinity was increasingly absent in the dominant culture. In fact, I say it isn’t in the sense that masculinity has been absorbed into femininity. And femininity into masculinity. Neuter-inity, I suppose? Mono-inity? Unisex-inity?
If “masculinity” means watching MMA, swearing, and initiating contact with the opposite sex…Well, women do that too, now. Increasingly. Neuterinity.
If it means being some kind of alpha in the household…bwahaha.
While I don’t consider helping around the house and with kids strictly an inclination of effete males, Pushharder did post a study about how men who do less housework get more sex.
Perhaps having women perform the lion share of domestic duties isn’t necessarily about men being “masculine” rather allowing women to be more “feminine”
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Back in the day, I remember some of the moms in our neighborhood being appalled at my son’s toy pistol and sheriff’s badge. They were not going to allow toy guns of any kind, and asked me not to let him bring them to the park.
It wasn’t long before some of those same people had their boys making “guns” out of sticks and chasing each other around with them, and building swords from cardboard and duct tape. I probably shouldn’t have taken pleasure in seeing all the violence, but I did.
[/quote]
Hahahaha. No, let the violence flow through you. Lol, it’s silly.
It is absolutely incomprehensible that we should believe if you take toy guns, toy swords, and all the rest away from boys that we can somehow squelch thousands of years of DNA combined with human nature. It is laughable and sad. These same people who believe this are somehow shocked when we find kids–with no other outlet–combusting in a fit psychopathy as teens or adults. Outlets must be made. The human condition and the innate drive towards competition and power is not going to change for Sally Soccer mom’s attempts to ban water pistols or super soakers that “might influence bad behavior”.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
How about you tell us about the inner workings of which you belong to.
[/quote]
Oh, I think you guys can figure it out. If you don’t actually already know from previous posts.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Thanks, I will try to find the NPR episode on the web. Maybe there’s a podcast. That sounds really, really interesting.
[/quote]
I got it from the podcast. I didn’t bring my personal computer to work though so I can’t tell you which it is. It was from 2006 or 2007 I think. I’ll try to look it up at home.[/quote]
Google fu!!- I just searched for NPR This American Life Testosterone and it popped up.
Completely fascinating. I’ve just listened to Act 2, but just WOW. It does reinforce a lot of stereotypes and I suspect a lot of women would be really surprised. Thanks. I’ll listen to the rest. Enjoying it.
Here’s the link.
Let’s not pretend there isn’t a large contingent of Samuel Soccer dads increasingly capable and willing to do just what Sally Soccer mom does.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Back in the day, I remember some of the moms in our neighborhood being appalled at my son’s toy pistol and sheriff’s badge. They were not going to allow toy guns of any kind, and asked me not to let him bring them to the park.
It wasn’t long before some of those same people had their boys making “guns” out of sticks and chasing each other around with them, and building swords from cardboard and duct tape. I probably shouldn’t have taken pleasure in seeing all the violence, but I did.
[/quote]
Hahahaha. No, let the violence flow through you. Lol, it’s silly.
It is absolutely incomprehensible that we should believe if you take toy guns, toy swords, and all the rest away from boys that we can somehow squelch thousands of years of DNA combined with human nature. It is laughable and sad. These same people who believe this are somehow shocked when we find kids–with no other outlet–combusting in a fit psychopathy as teens or adults. Outlets must be made. The human condition and the innate drive towards competition and power is not going to change for Sally Soccer mom’s attempts to ban water pistols or super soakers that “might influence bad behavior”.[/quote]
Half of those mom’s kids probably ended up on ADHD medicine because all that energy was making them unruly and violent. Instead of being glad that their kids were imaginative and creative enough to design their own toys and games, most were probably appalled at the fact that their precious angels were play “fighting”. Many probably decided right then that without pharmaceutical intervention their little boys would end up school shooters.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Perhaps having women perform the lion share of domestic duties isn’t necessarily about men being “masculine” rather allowing women to be more “feminine”
[/quote]
Therefore, less “masculine.” Therefore, about men being more “masculine” relative to the now more “feminine” women.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Thanks, I will try to find the NPR episode on the web. Maybe there’s a podcast. That sounds really, really interesting.
[/quote]
I got it from the podcast. I didn’t bring my personal computer to work though so I can’t tell you which it is. It was from 2006 or 2007 I think. I’ll try to look it up at home.[/quote]
Google fu!!- I just searched for NPR This American Life Testosterone and it popped up.
Completely fascinating. I’ve just listened to Act 2, but just WOW. It does reinforce a lot of stereotypes and I suspect a lot of women would be really surprised. Thanks. I’ll listen to the rest. Enjoying it.
Here’s the link.
[/quote]
Glad you liked it. It doesn’t excuse in any way boorish or manipulative behavior from men…but if it has that kind of impact on somebody who was hardwired as a woman, thinking like a woman, feeling etc., then is it really something you should try to eliminate, or even could, if you tried? I would argue you couldn’t even eliminate it if you tried and the attempt to do so is the reason you see a ton of the things you do now, which most have touched on already. Our human source code has this in mens’ operating manuals for a reason. I personally don’t think it’s “their fault” or something that women should even be upset about, it’s Nature. Don’t try to take Nature’s source code out of the software, it’s impossible. Just teach responsible direction of those natural characteristics.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Half of those mom’s kids probably ended up on ADHD medicine because all that energy was making them unruly and violent. Instead of being glad that their kids were imaginative and creative enough to design their own toys and games, most were probably appalled at the fact that their precious angels were play “fighting”. Many probably decided right then that without pharmaceutical intervention their little boys would end up school shooters. [/quote]
hah. right? On the other hand my cousin has a 7 year old and a 5 year old who both just built remote controlled robots out of legos with all that drive. Oh, they also get guns and swords. Let it flow baby!