Feminization of Men

Off Topic
181

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
I’m not saying that men shouldn’t be strong, or assertive. What I’m saying is that men are still men regardless of how physically dominant or mentally assertive they are. PEOPLE should be strong and mentally assertive. The only thing that makes you “manly” dangles between your legs–everything else is a result of your personal choice to conform to what others tell you to be.
[/quote]

Im not sure, but doesn’t the thing that “dangles between your legs” create a chemical difference that leads to a natural difference in physical and mental actions than women. I don’t get it, women love chivalry and men don’t want to go out with a girl who acts like “one of the guys”.

Calling it dominance is a complete overreaction. Obviously there are guys who cross boundaries but this is not an argument for the outlying few. We were meant to be different. We like the difference. As far as weight in politics, jobs, etc, seems like things, if not fairly even (cause im going to get blasted for saying that), are continuously heading in that, or more, direction. Why cant we just be satisfied…

182

[quote]oboffill wrote:

Were it the 19th century (Industrial Revolution), most people would agree with you. Nowadays, emotions are so much apart of decision making and the way we communicate. Denying your emotions is to deny humanity. Not a good idea.

[/quote]

well ive just seen so many women in particular act out solely on emotion and make many mistakes because of it. while you may be right we are not cavemen anymore acting on emotion can be dangerous.

here are some odd examples. emotiional eating binges, eating when hungry (hunger is not a true sign) , buying a house on first sight, getting into a fight with someone cause he told you fuck off. while they may not be the best of examples im just trying to point out the dangerous of emotion. really as times go on i can say i getting closer and closer to absolute zero emotion. its just got me into trouble in the past. not that it was major like the examples but when i look back it would of been best had the small events not happened.

again unlike some of the others on the forum i dont mind if you have a different view. and dont mind to discuss differences.

183

[quote]Arc_1mpuls3 wrote:
oboffill wrote:
Professor X wrote:
oboffill wrote:

I’m on this site because I like lifting weights and debating various topics. I understand you’d be more comfortable for everyone to see things the way you see them, but opposing viewpoints are always a good way to keep things in perspective, I think.

If you truly believed that, you wouldn’t have raised so much of an issue because someone had an “opposing viewpoint” to your own.

Are you saying that if I believed opposing viewpoints were good, then I’d shut the hell up?

Sorry, try again.

I think he’s pointing out the fact that your statements when placed against your reactions aren’t matching up. You say you’re in favor of dissent, your reactions say that’s true, unless they dissent from your oppinion. [/quote]

That this needed to be explained to him says a lot.

As far as the notion that being more “feminine” will somehow lead to world peace, I don’t think I have read quite that much crap concentrated into one area since I last visited the Politics forum. Being a world filled with pussies will save mankind? What, until the next major disaster happens and everyone dies because they don’t want to break a nail, smudge a designer outfit or get their feelings hurt?

That level of bullshit took some time to reach.

184

[quote]jii wrote:
while i personally believe any emotion is only a weakness and just gets in the way of thinking clearly.[/quote]

You sound like another young buck. You also sound like somebody who’s been hurt terribly in the past, and rather than learn from the subtleties of experience, you’re striving for the easy path – to shut down rather than face up to the truth of the matter.

Emotions can be problematic if you allow them to create unbalance in your life. They are, however, the only thing that allows for empathy. There is a term for individuals who are completely lack in empathy: sociopaths. The common defining trait in the variants of sociopathy is the inability to empathize with others.

I hardly consider striving for sociopathy to be a strength. We are complex social animals, and it is our capacity for emotion that has (in large part) allowed our species to thrive in spite of our meany weaknesses.

185

[quote]oboffill wrote:
Let me say that I’m more interested in people being true to themselves than feeling good about myself because joe cornbread replied with “I agree with oboffill” (not that it ever happens, haha). You all can go to hell for all I care, as long as it’s what you really want. [/quote]

It is not yours to determine whether or not people are being true to themselves. Their path, their stumbles to make. To even presume that you know their true self well enough to call BS on what you perceive as inconsistencies is the very height of hubris – because to speak from a stance of knowing that truth is to imply that you have achieved it.

Given that your posts are as riddled with, if not moreso, the very contradictions you point out in others, I’d say it’s a safe bet you’re in no danger of nirvana anytime soon.

Before you jump over a perceived hypocrisy: I’m not telling you what the truth of your experience is. I’m merely pointing out that, by your own standards, you suffer from the same flaw you’re accusing others of – save perhaps to an even greater degree.

In short, remove the plank from your eye before you complain about the sliver in your brother’s.

[quote][Generalizing here]
When someone (or an entire board) tells me that they bust their ass in the gym and don’t care what they look like and that these guido guys are feminine because they care about looks, then their next post is of some 80’s bodybuilder dressed in lycra spandex I think, “Hmmm…someone is being dishonest.”[/quote]

You seem to enjoy errors in perceptions the way that a fat British woman makes a trifle – in layers.

  1. If somebody proclaims that their prime motivation for lifting is not to look good, this does not equal not caring what they look like. You’ve come to the point of drawing extremes to justify your abrasiveness.

This is akin to men who act like jackasses, trying to excuse their basic lack of manners or decency as mere “honesty” – when the very excuse is in and of itself a lie. You, at least, don’t seem to be indulging in hypocrisy.

  1. There is indeed a great contradiction in the behaviour you describe, of claiming one motivation then posting images that would seem to imply the opposite. Where you’re making the error is in deciding for others where their motivation lies. It may well be the opposite.

You’ve suggested that others claim to lift for more noble reasons as a way of saving face, while secretly obsessing over looks. Perhaps it’s that they really do lift for deeper reasons than shallow and vain appearances, but acknowledge vain elements of it through posting such pictures as a way of placating some indefinable sense of a social norm.

Either way, you’re wasting your time trying to define other’s feelings for them, and in the process you’re breaking the thought process of other people down into binary elements. It’s not that simple. This isn’t a yes/no situation. It’s entirely possible to lift with the goal of strength/fitness/spiritual enlightenment/etc and still recognize that it’s not such a bad thing to remain trim and take care of your own appearance. To many, it’s indicative of self respect.

The issue that you seem to be missing is many here don’t have a problem with people who want to look good, rather they draw umbrage with those whose chief motivation is rooted in something that is, by it’s very nature, transitory and inconstant. In the world of weightlifting, where time, effort, and consistency are required for success, that which is transient is considered weak.

Is it then any wonder why flash-in-the-pan wanna-bes who lift chiefly for looks are shown disdain by those who pursue the long term?

186

Why does everybody care so damn much? Being a “man” is cut and dry every red-blooded chauvinistic stereotype ever created. Being a male is having a dick. Why do we glorify being a “man”?

I tore a hamstring squatting, I “took it easy” with a week of sprint workouts. That messed me up for longer. But it was manly, stupid, but manly.
I dislocated my elbow yesterday. I laughed at it, joked with the kid who did it, and sat for 2 hours and then had it shoved in to place at an orthopedists without complaining. That kept people from listenin to me bitch. Maybe that makes me a man.
I love the movie Full Metal Jacket.
I’ve eaten several pounds of unsauced meat at one sitting. (all hail sal n’ carvos)

I also shave my nuts, cook, garden, read philosophy,hate war, love violence, can talk to girls platonically, and can preserve instead of destroy. Yea, and I’m vain too. I’m ok with that.

I’m comfortable being a male. In all seriousness why aren’t you comfortable with my being a male instead of a man?

187

well i aint young that for sure. im probably older than most of the people on here by the way. i have not been hurt that much either in the past just observing things that went wrong for others.

also ive studied history intensely over the years and when i look back people of years past people were so much stronger physically and mentally. i bet they were in the survival mode. ive seen this trait in most of the modern day people of cambodia where i live. if you want to see people without emotion come to cambodia.

i do have empathy for others. but its very important to try not let personal contacts fog things.

[quote]Northcott wrote:

You sound like another young buck. You also sound like somebody who’s been hurt terribly in the past, and rather than learn from the subtleties of experience, you’re striving for the easy path – to shut down rather than face up to the truth of the matter.

Emotions can be problematic if you allow them to create unbalance in your life. They are, however, the only thing that allows for empathy. There is a term for individuals who are completely lack in empathy: sociopaths. The common defining trait in the variants of sociopathy is the inability to empathize with others.

I hardly consider striving for sociopathy to be a strength. We are complex social animals, and it is our capacity for emotion that has (in large part) allowed our species to thrive in spite of our meany weaknesses.

[/quote]

188

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
…

Gender Theory is a half-baked, poorly rationalized opinion, and to apply it to such a narrow subject as “The Feminization of the American Male circa 2000” is flat-out incorrect.

How anyone could waste their life studying such BS is beyond my understanding.[/quote]

First of all, the entire point of attending a University is to expand your point of view. Ask any winning trial lawyer or politician, and they will tell you that in order to win an argument, you must understand the other sides point of view. Simply writing something off as bullshit without taking the time to understand it and understand why you think it is bullshit is an ignorant and arrogant approach to life. Progress will never be made by those who believe that the only way is the old way. “If it aint broke, dont fix it” is a terrible dogma…those who make progress will say “Its not broken, but how can it be better?”

I find that the majority of the negative comments on the parts of this thread that I read before I got tired of hearing the same argument repeated numerous times have been towards vulcan because of his student status. Simply perpetuating a worn-out stereotype of college students as worthless, idealistic, and naive is a horrible approach to refuting his argument. Any fucktard can beat his hands on his chest and say that hes right, but it takes an intelligent being to say why he is right.

As to the subject at hand, the last time I checked, whether you got facials or not and whether you knew how to change your oil or not isnt what makes you a man. What makes you a man is that y chromosome and that thing youve got swinging between your legs. The question at hand is not manhood itself, but manliness and masculinity. I know a guy who I believe the majority of the people on this board would classify as a metrosexual who has an degree in chemical engineering, a wife, two young boys, and a 30 hour/week job ALONG WITH going to school full time to get his MS in nursing (having completed all of the requirements for a BS in two years). He puts up decent numbers in the gym. He doesnt train so the girls will like it. Hes happily married (however, he does get a kick out of the college aged girls who ask this 35 year old married father of two out on fridays) so that isnt an issue. He doesnt train because hes trying to massage his ego or prove to himself how much of a man he is. He trains for his health, so that he will maximize his chances of being able to provide for his wife and kids for the next 20-25 years of his life rather than giving into the plethora of lifestyle-based health problems suffered by middle-aged men. He plays any sport offered, has black belts in two different forms of martial arts, and at 35, offered to come and spar with a couple of 18-20 year old kids who outweighed him by 20 lbs and were fresh out of championship high school wrestling programs. He shaves his arms and coordinates his clothing, but he provides for his family and gets his kicks too.

Caring about your appearance doesnt make you gay. Vain…possibly, but not gay. What makes you gay is whether or not you have sex with men. I dont think you can really argue with that.

189

[quote]Taquito wrote:
Why does everybody care so damn much? Being a “man” is cut and dry every red-blooded chauvinistic stereotype ever created. Being a male is having a dick. Why do we glorify being a “man”?

I tore a hamstring squatting, I “took it easy” with a week of sprint workouts. That messed me up for longer. But it was manly, stupid, but manly.
I dislocated my elbow yesterday. I laughed at it, joked with the kid who did it, and sat for 2 hours and then had it shoved in to place at an orthopedists without complaining. That kept people from listenin to me bitch. Maybe that makes me a man.

I love the movie Full Metal Jacket.
I’ve eaten several pounds of unsauced meat at one sitting. (all hail sal n’ carvos)

I also shave my nuts, cook, garden, read philosophy,hate war, love violence, can talk to girls platonically, and can preserve instead of destroy. Yea, and I’m vain too. I’m ok with that.

I’m comfortable being a male. In all seriousness why aren’t you comfortable with my being a male instead of a man?[/quote]

Please give me your definition of being a man.

You kinda sound like you have mistaken being a dumbass for being a man.

Tear a quad, then sprint? That’s beyond dumbass - it’s just stupid.

190

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Tear a quad, then sprint? That’s beyond dumbass - it’s just stupid. [/quote]

I call that ‘Tuesday.’

Unconventional!

191

[quote]
Taquito wrote:

I tore a hamstring squatting, I “took it easy” with a week of sprint workouts. That messed me up for longer. But it was manly, stupid, but manly. [/quote]

Manly is being dumb enough to run on an injured leg if could be avoided and doing even more damage? WTF?

192

[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
I find that the majority of the negative comments on the parts of this thread that I read before I got tired of hearing the same argument repeated numerous times have been towards vulcan because of his student status. Simply perpetuating a worn-out stereotype of college students as worthless, idealistic, and naive is a horrible approach to refuting his argument. Any fucktard can beat his hands on his chest and say that hes right, but it takes an intelligent being to say why he is right.
[/quote]

The truth is the truth - not a sterotype.

He never made an argument. He presented a theory that is not even recognozed by the scientific community as a valid theory.

Sometimes - just proving the other guy is wrong is all you need to win.

To use your lawyer example - a good defense attorney only has to prove reasonable doubt. He doesn;t even have to acknowledge the opposition.

My bet is you are but a college kid yourself.

193

Will I be a man if I recieve a pen and pencil set, along with a legal pad and a leather case?

194

[quote]rainjack wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
I find that the majority of the negative comments on the parts of this thread that I read before I got tired of hearing the same argument repeated numerous times have been towards vulcan because of his student status. Simply perpetuating a worn-out stereotype of college students as worthless, idealistic, and naive is a horrible approach to refuting his argument. Any fucktard can beat his hands on his chest and say that hes right, but it takes an intelligent being to say why he is right.

The truth is the truth - not a sterotype.

He never made an argument. He presented a theory that is not even recognozed by the scientific community as a valid theory.

Sometimes - just proving the other guy is wrong is all you need to win.

To use your lawyer example - a good defense attorney only has to prove reasonable doubt. He doesn;t even have to acknowledge the opposition.

My bet is you are but a college kid yourself.

[/quote]

The key word is “sometimes” that is all you have to do. This is not a relevant situation.

Reasonable doubt is just that. Reasonable. However, simply taking the stand and saying “my client is innocent. that is all” is not reasonable. There must be an alibi, conflicting evidence, etc.

So what if I am a college student? I dont really what the problem is. Chances are youre a middle aged man, white, make somewhere between 50 and 85 g’s a year. Does it make a difference? Your occupation has you listed as an accountant. That means you definitely do not have a degree in sociology.

Beating your chest really does not prove anything.

Im not for the pussification of men in America, but I am against nailing masculinity down to a single stereotypical character, a prospect which you seem to find most inviting.

Youve just wasted the past couple of hours on a message board telling some “dumbass college kid” how much of an idiot he is because he likes to act like he knows more than other people. Being an accountant, I doubt you know much about what he was discussing. Therefore, you are doing the exact same thing as he is with the only difference in credibility being an age difference , work experience, and a college degree in a field unrelated to the argument.

One more question…how do you classify being an accountant as “blue collar”?

Im going to bed now, so you can feel free to flame away with your repetitive bullshit, this dumbass college kid has to get up and drive home for break tomorrow.

195

[quote]rainjack wrote:
He never made an argument. He presented a theory that is not even recognozed by the scientific community as a valid theory.
[/quote]

Technically speaking, his arguement is considered a valid theory by the scientific community. He seems to be describing “Social Role Theory” which is supported by a number of scientists (Eagly, Karau, Lord, Wood, Diekman, etc.)

196

HaHaHa!!!:):wink:

Sly’s absolutely right!;):slight_smile:

I vote for Vin Diesel (Fast & Furious, Pitch Black) and Jason Statham (Transporter, Caos, The Italian job)!;):slight_smile:

They’re really tough badasses!;):slight_smile:

197

This thread makes me to think about those female gorillas that live in captivity. They have never seen another gorilla nursing a babygorilla and they just don’t know what to do. They can’t breastfeed their babies or hold them gently. The babys are in serious danger of being killed in the hands of their mothers.

So, while I don’t buy gender theory as it is, I do agree that the role of learning is considerable. I don’t like the concept of gender, because it puts all of our behaviours on the scale of feminine-masculine, and that’s an over-simplification.

198

[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
The key word is “sometimes” that is all you have to do. This is not a relevant situation.[/quote]

Says who? You? And your qualifications to make this judgement are? Oh yeah - you have enrolled in college. Pardon me. I forgot how fucking smart you guys are.

But none of that requires the defense to “know” the prosecution’s case. If the defendant has an air tight alibi, or there is suffieient evidence to create reasonable doubt - it doesn’t matter what the prosecution says. One only needs to look as far as the OJ Simpson case to see that.

Neither do you. Neither does the English major that started this whole thing. You have no fucking clue what my degrees are in.

The fact that you are a stupid college kid removes most of your credibility.

Telling the truth and calling stupid college kids stupid college kids is not beating your chest. Well maybe it is in your little world.

Show me where I have seriously done that. I don’t think you will be able to.

I haven’t spent anytime today on this thread - my posts are scattered over a couple of days. But thaqt begs the questions: What fucking business is it of yours what I do with my time?

He’s not in any field. He is a student. Just like you. The fact that you can’t see that you know nothing scares the fuck out of me.

You doubt - therefore I am? Where did you take your logic lessons at? I’d ask for a refund.

When did I ever do that? Show me the quote. Show me the post where you gleened that inference.

Good luck with that.

199

[quote]Professor X wrote:
As far as the notion that being more “feminine” will somehow lead to world peace, I don’t think I have read quite that much crap concentrated into one area since I last visited the Politics forum. Being a world filled with pussies will save mankind? What, until the next major disaster happens and everyone dies because they don’t want to break a nail, smudge a designer outfit or get their feelings hurt?

That level of bullshit took some time to reach.[/quote]

You’re right. Your own bullshit took some time for you to reach because I said nothing like what you wrote.

A great leader is able to empathize with the people. Bill Clinton was a man loved by the American people because he seemed to connect to us on a human level. Cheney, Rumsfeld, horrible leaders because they were completely disconnected from the people they were supposed to serve.

200

My whole point was that you got so caught up with trying to rip vulcan apart that all you have done is made yourself look like an ass.

If you look at the number of posts I have, you will notice that it is very low. Thats because I usually dont spend time posting here, I read the articles and occasionally respond. I felt compelled to respond to this one because you were laying into this kid because he was a college student who had ideas.

So what if he got the ideas from a teacher. Thats what teachers do, they teach. So what if you disagree with it, you have absolutely NO more credibility than he does and no basis on which to pigeonhole every college student in America down as being idiotic besides your own jaded existance.

You said that it is a fact that I am a stupid college kid. Id like to see you present any actual evidence that you have that gives you the fucking right to make that judgment about me besides for the fact that youre some middle aged douchebag who gets his jollies off of bossing people around on a message board.

You have no more right to make that judgment than I have to say that you are a redneck, chauvinist, homophobe. But, since you havent actually presented an argument in this thread besides for “Im older than you, therefore, I am right and you are wrong.”, I am going to go ahead and say that.

As far as your trial lawyer example, that is incorrect, because there is no question of guilt or innocence in this case. There is not be all end all answer. This is simply a matter of theory. What people believe is the reason for this phenomenon in society.

Since I have no fucking clue what your degrees are in, why dont you shine a light on that for me? Obviously, its not communications because you seem to lack the ability to string together a coherent point besides “IM OLD! FUCK COLLEGE KIDS!”

Weve already ruled out sociology. Most likely, you have a business degree, I dont see how you became and accountant without one. If you have another degree, I would guess that it is in the sciences. Congratulations on your degrees, having spent so much time in college, you should be exactly 3 times dumber than I am by all of your own calculations.

Honestly, I dont give a fuck what you do with your time, I just read the first couple of pages of this thread and thought “man, that guys a dick.”

As far as my “beating your chest comment”, you have made no point except for “youre wrong”, “youre dont know shit because I say you do”, “Im smarter than you because Im older” over and over and fucking over again. That counts as beating your chest.

You know, the way apes do when they want to show dominance over other males without actually proving that dominance. If you followed up anything you wrote with a legitimate argument, then I wouldnt say you were beating your chest.

You missed the entire point of this thread and instead went after someone who had the same basic views as you but with a different perspective of the mechanics. You have done nothing to prove your irrelevant point and have done nothing to further the on-topic discussion in this thread.