Documentary: The Disappearing Male

[debraD]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

[/quote]

Excellent point, Elegua.

As a woman I would like to suggest that the woman is a version of the man.
A more fragile version of the man.

I experience the male force as something that when properly exercised, it is a force I am naturally inclined to surrender to.

So I would say that yes, women can exhibit those characteristics and even take over if necessary but it is expressed in a complementary role to the male.
The female make up is much more delicate - even for the strongest women, compared to the strongest males: they are more delicate.

The man is the ultra half and the woman is the missing piece.

Feminism has poisoned true masculinity.
Feminism has killed true femininity.

Male and female are not created equal, they have the same equity.

Understand what that means and you will find happiness in your role, whether feminine or masculine.

In the presence of true masculinity women do know their place and operate as a complementary role.

I would say even in her most pro active, women are primarily a receptive force, whereas the male is an active force, as the primary expression of his being, his manhood.

Man do thrive when they take the lead, even if it is the woman who is truly leading but from behind; backing him up, complementing him in that way as opposed to being perceived as being “behind” as “second class” or unimportant.

The perception is the problem. They are not equal but both have the same equity; same value in their complementary roles.

The expression of her “masculine traits” becomes simply perceived as the strength of her femininity because what defines her as a woman is how she uses those qualities in a complementary role to the male.

The woman is the female version of the man. And of course as a version it will have the inherent qualities of the other model.
The expression of “strong” qualities in the female version is fine tuned for a different role.

And it is only natural she would be able to reflect his qualities back to him, to be a mirror of his qualities.

Feminine strength through cooperation instead of competition.

When the so called “strong, independent women” use these qualities in competition with the male force, she weakens herself, his self and the world of their offspring.

Female force can be active as well as receptive but it is always to be complementary to the male not independent of the male force.

[/quote]

What a load of shit. But I’m sure a few insecure men got hard-ons reading that. lol.

[orion]

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

[/quote]

Excellent point, Elegua.

As a woman I would like to suggest that the woman is a version of the man.
A more fragile version of the man.

I experience the male force as something that when properly exercised, it is a force I am naturally inclined to surrender to.

So I would say that yes, women can exhibit those characteristics and even take over if necessary but it is expressed in a complementary role to the male.
The female make up is much more delicate - even for the strongest women, compared to the strongest males: they are more delicate.

The man is the ultra half and the woman is the missing piece.

Feminism has poisoned true masculinity.
Feminism has killed true femininity.

Male and female are not created equal, they have the same equity.

Understand what that means and you will find happiness in your role, whether feminine or masculine.

In the presence of true masculinity women do know their place and operate as a complementary role.

I would say even in her most pro active, women are primarily a receptive force, whereas the male is an active force, as the primary expression of his being, his manhood.

Man do thrive when they take the lead, even if it is the woman who is truly leading but from behind; backing him up, complementing him in that way as opposed to being perceived as being “behind” as “second class” or unimportant.

The perception is the problem. They are not equal but both have the same equity; same value in their complementary roles.

The expression of her “masculine traits” becomes simply perceived as the strength of her femininity because what defines her as a woman is how she uses those qualities in a complementary role to the male.

The woman is the female version of the man. And of course as a version it will have the inherent qualities of the other model.
The expression of “strong” qualities in the female version is fine tuned for a different role.

And it is only natural she would be able to reflect his qualities back to him, to be a mirror of his qualities.

Feminine strength through cooperation instead of competition.

When the so called “strong, independent women” use these qualities in competition with the male force, she weakens herself, his self and the world of their offspring.

Female force can be active as well as receptive but it is always to be complementary to the male not independent of the male force.

[/quote]

What a load of shit. But I’m sure a few insecure men got hard-ons reading that. lol.
[/quote]

Is that what it looks like when a Canadian-ess is losing her shit?

[imhungry]

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

[/quote]

Excellent point, Elegua.

As a woman I would like to suggest that the woman is a version of the man.
A more fragile version of the man.

I experience the male force as something that when properly exercised, it is a force I am naturally inclined to surrender to.

So I would say that yes, women can exhibit those characteristics and even take over if necessary but it is expressed in a complementary role to the male.
The female make up is much more delicate - even for the strongest women, compared to the strongest males: they are more delicate.

The man is the ultra half and the woman is the missing piece.

Feminism has poisoned true masculinity.
Feminism has killed true femininity.

Male and female are not created equal, they have the same equity.

Understand what that means and you will find happiness in your role, whether feminine or masculine.

In the presence of true masculinity women do know their place and operate as a complementary role.

I would say even in her most pro active, women are primarily a receptive force, whereas the male is an active force, as the primary expression of his being, his manhood.

Man do thrive when they take the lead, even if it is the woman who is truly leading but from behind; backing him up, complementing him in that way as opposed to being perceived as being “behind” as “second class” or unimportant.

The perception is the problem. They are not equal but both have the same equity; same value in their complementary roles.

The expression of her “masculine traits” becomes simply perceived as the strength of her femininity because what defines her as a woman is how she uses those qualities in a complementary role to the male.

The woman is the female version of the man. And of course as a version it will have the inherent qualities of the other model.
The expression of “strong” qualities in the female version is fine tuned for a different role.

And it is only natural she would be able to reflect his qualities back to him, to be a mirror of his qualities.

Feminine strength through cooperation instead of competition.

When the so called “strong, independent women” use these qualities in competition with the male force, she weakens herself, his self and the world of their offspring.

Female force can be active as well as receptive but it is always to be complementary to the male not independent of the male force.

[/quote]

What a load of shit. But I’m sure a few insecure men got hard-ons reading that. lol.
[/quote]

Nope! Not me, Deb!

[debraD]

[quote]orion wrote:

Is that what it looks like when a Canadian-ess is losing her shit?[/quote]

Losing my shit? How do you figure? You get that from a disagreeable and dismissive remark and some mocking?

I must have my shit permanently lost is that’s the criteria =D

[Fletch1986]

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

[/quote]

Excellent point, Elegua.

As a woman I would like to suggest that the woman is a version of the man.
A more fragile version of the man.

I experience the male force as something that when properly exercised, it is a force I am naturally inclined to surrender to.

So I would say that yes, women can exhibit those characteristics and even take over if necessary but it is expressed in a complementary role to the male.
The female make up is much more delicate - even for the strongest women, compared to the strongest males: they are more delicate.

The man is the ultra half and the woman is the missing piece.

Feminism has poisoned true masculinity.
Feminism has killed true femininity.

Male and female are not created equal, they have the same equity.

Understand what that means and you will find happiness in your role, whether feminine or masculine.

In the presence of true masculinity women do know their place and operate as a complementary role.

I would say even in her most pro active, women are primarily a receptive force, whereas the male is an active force, as the primary expression of his being, his manhood.

Man do thrive when they take the lead, even if it is the woman who is truly leading but from behind; backing him up, complementing him in that way as opposed to being perceived as being “behind” as “second class” or unimportant.

The perception is the problem. They are not equal but both have the same equity; same value in their complementary roles.

The expression of her “masculine traits” becomes simply perceived as the strength of her femininity because what defines her as a woman is how she uses those qualities in a complementary role to the male.

The woman is the female version of the man. And of course as a version it will have the inherent qualities of the other model.
The expression of “strong” qualities in the female version is fine tuned for a different role.

And it is only natural she would be able to reflect his qualities back to him, to be a mirror of his qualities.

Feminine strength through cooperation instead of competition.

When the so called “strong, independent women” use these qualities in competition with the male force, she weakens herself, his self and the world of their offspring.

Female force can be active as well as receptive but it is always to be complementary to the male not independent of the male force.

[/quote]

What a load of shit. But I’m sure a few insecure men got hard-ons reading that. lol.
[/quote]

Alpha gave a detailed thought out response. Would you care to elaborate and expound upon why her post is ‘a load of shit’ and give her and the topic the same respect and thoughfulness she did?

[debraD]

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

[/quote]

Excellent point, Elegua.

As a woman I would like to suggest that the woman is a version of the man.
A more fragile version of the man.

I experience the male force as something that when properly exercised, it is a force I am naturally inclined to surrender to.

So I would say that yes, women can exhibit those characteristics and even take over if necessary but it is expressed in a complementary role to the male.
The female make up is much more delicate - even for the strongest women, compared to the strongest males: they are more delicate.

The man is the ultra half and the woman is the missing piece.

Feminism has poisoned true masculinity.
Feminism has killed true femininity.

Male and female are not created equal, they have the same equity.

Understand what that means and you will find happiness in your role, whether feminine or masculine.

In the presence of true masculinity women do know their place and operate as a complementary role.

I would say even in her most pro active, women are primarily a receptive force, whereas the male is an active force, as the primary expression of his being, his manhood.

Man do thrive when they take the lead, even if it is the woman who is truly leading but from behind; backing him up, complementing him in that way as opposed to being perceived as being “behind” as “second class” or unimportant.

The perception is the problem. They are not equal but both have the same equity; same value in their complementary roles.

The expression of her “masculine traits” becomes simply perceived as the strength of her femininity because what defines her as a woman is how she uses those qualities in a complementary role to the male.

The woman is the female version of the man. And of course as a version it will have the inherent qualities of the other model.
The expression of “strong” qualities in the female version is fine tuned for a different role.

And it is only natural she would be able to reflect his qualities back to him, to be a mirror of his qualities.

Feminine strength through cooperation instead of competition.

When the so called “strong, independent women” use these qualities in competition with the male force, she weakens herself, his self and the world of their offspring.

Female force can be active as well as receptive but it is always to be complementary to the male not independent of the male force.

[/quote]

What a load of shit. But I’m sure a few insecure men got hard-ons reading that. lol.
[/quote]

Nope! Not me, Deb![/quote]

haha but I’ve heard about what else gives you a hard-on from the porn addiction thread

[debraD]

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

[/quote]

Excellent point, Elegua.

As a woman I would like to suggest that the woman is a version of the man.
A more fragile version of the man.

I experience the male force as something that when properly exercised, it is a force I am naturally inclined to surrender to.

So I would say that yes, women can exhibit those characteristics and even take over if necessary but it is expressed in a complementary role to the male.
The female make up is much more delicate - even for the strongest women, compared to the strongest males: they are more delicate.

The man is the ultra half and the woman is the missing piece.

Feminism has poisoned true masculinity.
Feminism has killed true femininity.

Male and female are not created equal, they have the same equity.

Understand what that means and you will find happiness in your role, whether feminine or masculine.

In the presence of true masculinity women do know their place and operate as a complementary role.

I would say even in her most pro active, women are primarily a receptive force, whereas the male is an active force, as the primary expression of his being, his manhood.

Man do thrive when they take the lead, even if it is the woman who is truly leading but from behind; backing him up, complementing him in that way as opposed to being perceived as being “behind” as “second class” or unimportant.

The perception is the problem. They are not equal but both have the same equity; same value in their complementary roles.

The expression of her “masculine traits” becomes simply perceived as the strength of her femininity because what defines her as a woman is how she uses those qualities in a complementary role to the male.

The woman is the female version of the man. And of course as a version it will have the inherent qualities of the other model.
The expression of “strong” qualities in the female version is fine tuned for a different role.

And it is only natural she would be able to reflect his qualities back to him, to be a mirror of his qualities.

Feminine strength through cooperation instead of competition.

When the so called “strong, independent women” use these qualities in competition with the male force, she weakens herself, his self and the world of their offspring.

Female force can be active as well as receptive but it is always to be complementary to the male not independent of the male force.

[/quote]

What a load of shit. But I’m sure a few insecure men got hard-ons reading that. lol.
[/quote]

Alpha gave a detailed thought out response. Would you care to elaborate and expound upon why her post is ‘a load of shit’ and give her and the topic the same respect and thoughfulness she did? [/quote]

So you got a hard-on too eh

Seriously though I’m just calling it as I see it. I’m not going to offer respect to nonsense and don’t care how nicely it’s stated.

[imhungry]

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]imhungry wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

[/quote]

Excellent point, Elegua.

As a woman I would like to suggest that the woman is a version of the man.
A more fragile version of the man.

I experience the male force as something that when properly exercised, it is a force I am naturally inclined to surrender to.

So I would say that yes, women can exhibit those characteristics and even take over if necessary but it is expressed in a complementary role to the male.
The female make up is much more delicate - even for the strongest women, compared to the strongest males: they are more delicate.

The man is the ultra half and the woman is the missing piece.

Feminism has poisoned true masculinity.
Feminism has killed true femininity.

Male and female are not created equal, they have the same equity.

Understand what that means and you will find happiness in your role, whether feminine or masculine.

In the presence of true masculinity women do know their place and operate as a complementary role.

I would say even in her most pro active, women are primarily a receptive force, whereas the male is an active force, as the primary expression of his being, his manhood.

Man do thrive when they take the lead, even if it is the woman who is truly leading but from behind; backing him up, complementing him in that way as opposed to being perceived as being “behind” as “second class” or unimportant.

The perception is the problem. They are not equal but both have the same equity; same value in their complementary roles.

The expression of her “masculine traits” becomes simply perceived as the strength of her femininity because what defines her as a woman is how she uses those qualities in a complementary role to the male.

The woman is the female version of the man. And of course as a version it will have the inherent qualities of the other model.
The expression of “strong” qualities in the female version is fine tuned for a different role.

And it is only natural she would be able to reflect his qualities back to him, to be a mirror of his qualities.

Feminine strength through cooperation instead of competition.

When the so called “strong, independent women” use these qualities in competition with the male force, she weakens herself, his self and the world of their offspring.

Female force can be active as well as receptive but it is always to be complementary to the male not independent of the male force.

[/quote]

What a load of shit. But I’m sure a few insecure men got hard-ons reading that. lol.
[/quote]

Nope! Not me, Deb![/quote]

haha but I’ve heard about what else gives you a hard-on from the porn addiction thread ;)[/quote]
No! That’s Matty who’s into amputees!

Although, the one was pretty hot.

[orion]

[quote]debraD wrote:

Seriously though I’m just calling it as I see it. I’m not going to offer respect to nonsense and don’t care how nicely it’s stated.
[/quote]

Yeah well, there is nonsense, things you see as nonsense which arent, things you think are not nonsense but are and, hypothetically, thing you see as nonsense that are, indeed, hogwash.

Without you elaborating I need to break out my D&D dice.

[therajraj]

[quote]debraD wrote:
Well said Aussie Davo.

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:
That is a fantastic post, I must have missed it amidst the babble about automatic weapons.

Now, going on the above…I agree that ALL of the above traits in batman’s post represent excellent goals for men…but are they not also excellent goals for women in the modern world, as well?

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

Is it a negative thing for a woman to be the master of her emotions, to accept adversity and challenges, to be willing and able to compete, to be willing and able to use force to defend herself, or to be willing to accept confrontation in a disciplined, self-controlled fashion to stand up for her ideals?

[/quote]

This is usually how the masculinity discussion goes-- a bunch of guys come up with a bunch of virtuous traits that most of them barely posses and declare them masculine. As if only men have these qualities. And is if most men do.

You can’t all be leaders. And I’m willing to bet that very few of you are.

[/quote]

Generally speaking The traits most in line with positive leadership I would label masculine. Of course we men possess these skills to varying degrees, but those of us who possess more of these traits, succeed more than those than those that have less.

[debraD]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

Seriously though I’m just calling it as I see it. I’m not going to offer respect to nonsense and don’t care how nicely it’s stated.
[/quote]

Yeah well, there is nonsense, things you see as nonsense which arent, things you think are not nonsense but are and, hypothetically, thing you see as nonsense that are, indeed, hogwash.

Without you elaborating I need to break out my D&D dice. [/quote]

Well if the so-called nonsense was not nonsense and in fact reality, this discussion would not take place because there would be no complaint of a lack of said nonsense and I would not be compelled to to disrespect it.

[imhungry]

I had no idea that there were issues with today’s men and women, until I joined TN.

I guess ignorance truly IS bliss.

Or, it’s all a matter of perspective. You know, the whole “the more things change, the more they stay the same” type thing…

[Fletch1986]

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Elegua360 wrote:

If a woman saw the above traits as worthy of her to pursue, would that mean that she is masculine?

[/quote]

Excellent point, Elegua.

As a woman I would like to suggest that the woman is a version of the man.
A more fragile version of the man.

I experience the male force as something that when properly exercised, it is a force I am naturally inclined to surrender to.

So I would say that yes, women can exhibit those characteristics and even take over if necessary but it is expressed in a complementary role to the male.
The female make up is much more delicate - even for the strongest women, compared to the strongest males: they are more delicate.

The man is the ultra half and the woman is the missing piece.

Feminism has poisoned true masculinity.
Feminism has killed true femininity.

Male and female are not created equal, they have the same equity.

Understand what that means and you will find happiness in your role, whether feminine or masculine.

In the presence of true masculinity women do know their place and operate as a complementary role.

I would say even in her most pro active, women are primarily a receptive force, whereas the male is an active force, as the primary expression of his being, his manhood.

Man do thrive when they take the lead, even if it is the woman who is truly leading but from behind; backing him up, complementing him in that way as opposed to being perceived as being “behind” as “second class” or unimportant.

The perception is the problem. They are not equal but both have the same equity; same value in their complementary roles.

The expression of her “masculine traits” becomes simply perceived as the strength of her femininity because what defines her as a woman is how she uses those qualities in a complementary role to the male.

The woman is the female version of the man. And of course as a version it will have the inherent qualities of the other model.
The expression of “strong” qualities in the female version is fine tuned for a different role.

And it is only natural she would be able to reflect his qualities back to him, to be a mirror of his qualities.

Feminine strength through cooperation instead of competition.

When the so called “strong, independent women” use these qualities in competition with the male force, she weakens herself, his self and the world of their offspring.

Female force can be active as well as receptive but it is always to be complementary to the male not independent of the male force.

[/quote]

What a load of shit. But I’m sure a few insecure men got hard-ons reading that. lol.
[/quote]

Alpha gave a detailed thought out response. Would you care to elaborate and expound upon why her post is ‘a load of shit’ and give her and the topic the same respect and thoughfulness she did? [/quote]

So you got a hard-on too eh

Seriously though I’m just calling it as I see it. I’m not going to offer respect to nonsense and don’t care how nicely it’s stated.
[/quote]

So it’s nonsense because you say so. Got it. [rolls eyes]

[orion]

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

Seriously though I’m just calling it as I see it. I’m not going to offer respect to nonsense and don’t care how nicely it’s stated.
[/quote]

Yeah well, there is nonsense, things you see as nonsense which arent, things you think are not nonsense but are and, hypothetically, thing you see as nonsense that are, indeed, hogwash.

Without you elaborating I need to break out my D&D dice. [/quote]

Well if the so-called nonsense was not nonsense and in fact reality, this discussion would not take place because there would be no complaint of a lack of said nonsense and I would not be compelled to to disrespect it.
[/quote]

So it is as you say it is and we should take your word for it?

But I say this is not so and and since my truth weighs at least 12,5 kgs more than yours, the scales of justice have spoken.

[debraD]

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

So it’s nonsense because you say so. Got it. [rolls eyes][/quote]

If it’s an attempt at defining me and my ‘role’ then damn straight it is. I speak for myself.

[orion]

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

So it’s nonsense because you say so. Got it. [rolls eyes][/quote]

If it’s an attempt at defining me and my ‘role’ then damn strait it is. I speak for myself.
[/quote]

You go grrrrllll, keep your frame.

The trick is though, to hold a defendable position.

Seriously.

[debraD]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

Seriously though I’m just calling it as I see it. I’m not going to offer respect to nonsense and don’t care how nicely it’s stated.
[/quote]

Yeah well, there is nonsense, things you see as nonsense which arent, things you think are not nonsense but are and, hypothetically, thing you see as nonsense that are, indeed, hogwash.

Without you elaborating I need to break out my D&D dice. [/quote]

Well if the so-called nonsense was not nonsense and in fact reality, this discussion would not take place because there would be no complaint of a lack of said nonsense and I would not be compelled to to disrespect it.
[/quote]

So it is as you say it is and we should take your word for it?

But I say this is not so and and since my truth weighs at least 12,5 kgs more than yours, the scales of justice have spoken.
[/quote]

If it isn’t then why does this thread exist?

[debraD]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

So it’s nonsense because you say so. Got it. [rolls eyes][/quote]

If it’s an attempt at defining me and my ‘role’ then damn strait it is. I speak for myself.
[/quote]

You go grrrrllll, keep your frame.

The trick is though, to hold a defendable position.

Seriously.

[/quote]

No need. I am right =D Whether y’all submit to that fact is a matter of how much entertainment we get from our little disagreement.

[csulli]

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

So it’s nonsense because you say so. Got it. [rolls eyes][/quote]

If it’s an attempt at defining me and my ‘role’ then damn strait it is. I speak for myself.
[/quote]

You go grrrrllll, keep your frame.

The trick is though, to hold a defendable position.

Seriously.

[/quote]

No need. I am right =D Whether y’all submit to that fact is a matter of how much entertainment we get from our little disagreement.
[/quote]

What are you right about though? You disagree with what the fire lady said, but what do you actually believe about it? Just the opposite of everything she said or what?

[orion]

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]debraD wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

So it’s nonsense because you say so. Got it. [rolls eyes][/quote]

If it’s an attempt at defining me and my ‘role’ then damn strait it is. I speak for myself.
[/quote]

You go grrrrllll, keep your frame.

The trick is though, to hold a defendable position.

Seriously.

[/quote]

No need. I am right =D Whether y’all submit to that fact is a matter of how much entertainment we get from our little disagreement.
[/quote]

Look, the only person on this planet who can proclaim THE TRUTH ex cathedra is Da Pope and you dont even have Prada red slippers.

So there.