Feminization of Men

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
It’s funny how often those that have no real stance or basis in fact resort to ad hominem (personal) attack. Frankly, I’m not a metro, and I hang out largely with weightlifters. None of us gives two shits about what brand of clothes we wear, nor do we go to Planet Fitness. As for blue collar, I spend my summers doing construction, drywall, stucco, and misc renovation. I know exactly what blue collar work is like, because I use the wages I earn from blue collar work to pay for my living expenses and tuition.
[/quote]

I’d say who’ve had more real-life experience than the average college kid. Yes, the real world sucks, which means you should take this time in college to learn to think critically. You obviously don’t buy all of what this class is teaching yet you’re being open-minded and thinking about it while being around a bunch of construction guys. This is good.

As for the differences between the way boys and girls/men and women think, yes they are there. No doubt in my mind about this. The problem is how far do we take this approach? Is it really true that boys are better in math than girls? My daughter is great at math, yet she also likes lots of girly things so I’m not worried that she’ll “go gay” later in life. And what about music? Would you consider a guy who likes classical music manly or metro? Before you answer, think about the fact that studies have suggested that has found correlation between musical ability and math ability. Beethoven was able to compose even when he became deaf because he found mathematical relationships between the notes.

The guys that go for the metro thing are followers. If the trend were back to the grunge thing and it became “hip” to wear flannel and lift weights, these same guys would be following that trend. Sure, on the surface they would appear more “manly,” but it would be just that - an appearance. They’d still be followers blindly going after the latest trend to become “popular” or accepted.

They would still lack the ability that shows true character and emotional maturity - the ability to think for themselves. This is what makes leaders and creates success in the real world. This is the problem with society - lack of critical, independent thinkers who have drive and initiative. Metrosexuality is just a symptom of this problem.

There is no reason to get pissed off guys…some people have differing views of the world. I admit this stuff seems borderline retarded to me but I at least always “try” to chalk it up to my own misunderstanding. I clearly don’t understand why one would devote one’s time to this sort of pursuit…but I am hoping to figure out why.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

I’d say who’ve had more real-life experience than the average college kid. Yes, the real world sucks, which means you should take this time in college to learn to think critically. You obviously don’t buy all of what this class is teaching yet you’re being open-minded and thinking about it while being around a bunch of construction guys. This is good.

As for the differences between the way boys and girls/men and women think, yes they are there. No doubt in my mind about this. The problem is how far do we take this approach? Is it really true that boys are better in math than girls? My daughter is great at math, yet she also likes lots of girly things so I’m not worried that she’ll “go gay” later in life. And what about music? Would you consider a guy who likes classical music manly or metro? Before you answer, think about the fact that studies have suggested that has found correlation between musical ability and math ability. Beethoven was able to compose even when he became deaf because he found mathematical relationships between the notes.

The guys that go for the metro thing are followers. If the trend were back to the grunge thing and it became “hip” to wear flannel and lift weights, these same guys would be following that trend. Sure, on the surface they would appear more “manly,” but it would be just that - an appearance. They’d still be followers blindly going after the latest trend to become “popular” or accepted.

They would still lack the ability that shows true character and emotional maturity - the ability to think for themselves. This is what makes leaders and creates success in the real world. This is the problem with society - lack of critical, independent thinkers who have drive and initiative. Metrosexuality is just a symptom of this problem.[/quote]

Thankyou for an interesting and intelligent post, Mike. To answer you, I think your problems with my argument are not necessarily IN my argument. I’m not arguing FOR metrosexuality. I’m arguing that in order to be considered a man, males should not have to conform to a predetermined “macho” role. In fact, I fully agree that metrosexuality is a pose, for the most part…however, I think that aligning oneself as a polar opposite to metrosexuality, merely to get as far away from it as possible has horrible ramifications for personal identity. A man straining to be something he is not is always going to be disappointed, regardless of whether his goal is to be he-man, or a southern bell.

I would consider both your daughter’s interest in math, and any male’s interest in classical music to have little or nothing to do with their gender role. I don’t think it is an interest in “girly things” that makes a woman a woman, nor an interest in “manly” things that makes a man become a man, nor do I believe that it predetermines sexual orientation. Regardless of what your daughter is into, I don’t think that there is much chance she will “go gay” unless she is sexually attracted toward women.

As for my other criticizers, I’m not sure where you got racist from. Noteably, red-neck is not necessarily based on race; it is based on ignorance, at least where I come from. If it has other connotations where you are, I apologize. And as a sidenote, aren’t you making comments on my intelligence and ability from behind your keyboard? How is it different when I do it?

At any rate, I can refute your entire argument with one sentence:
I PAY MY OWN WAY. That’s right, I get 0 help from “Mommy and Daddy,” and haven’t since I moved out at age 18. It means that I have to work my ass off, as well as accumulating student loans, but it all sits squarely on MY shoulders. I also operate a small business on the side, building and repairing computers. I don’t do wonderfully, but it pays for my protein. As for considering myself wonderful or more intelligent…far from it. I’m just more open-minded, quite obviously, evidenced by the fact that you feel the need to angrily attack rather than calmly discuss ideas that undermine your current paradigm. I’m also not saying that university makes people more intelligent–far from it. The stupid remain stupid, and the smart remain smart. University is merely a tool to help on one’s journey out of ignorance, if one so desires.

As for your comment ZedLeppin, consider a set of twins brothers, one put into an abusive, poverty stricken home, and one put into a loving, supportive, middle-class family in which the father is available and gentle. Which one is going to be more messed in the head and have major issues to deal with? Nature vs nurture just does not work.

As for what I hope to do with the idea of gender roles, and why it’s important? How many men have poor self-esteem that they need to artificially boost in order to feel good about themselves? Many self-esteem problems arise directly from an inconsistency between a boy’s abilities and society’s expectations on them. How do I know this? I have been a teaching assistant through every level of education, INCLUDING university. I have worked with more confused young men than I thought there were–which prompted me to look into masculinity studies. Not all men meet the normative standard of “hegemonic masculinity” (basically the pinnacle as a short summation of a VERY loaded term) In fact, damned FEW men meet that standard, and most fight inner battles between wanting to make their own way and dealing with the expectations or their fathers, and their societies.

My information does not come from ONE prof, because there are precisely zero profs teaching this at my university at the present time. Masculinity seems to be the big taboo subject that no one wants to touch, and the gross majority of men get angry (as you may notice in the responses to what I’ve said) when it is questioned. Looking at literature through the lens of gender theory lets people see how their gender roles have evolved and why. The goal? To eliminate pre-destined gender roles and replace them with equality, and a sense of personal choice. I would like to see a world where the boy who takes up ballet and does well (providing he can make money and pay his own way) is as valued as the one who becomes a mechanic, or a businessman (providing he can make money and make his own way–yes I meant to repeat myself for emphasis)

The true reason that I’m interested in most of this is simple: know thyself. I don’t like the idea of making choices based on preconceptions that are untrue, so I seek to illuminate truth for myself, and hopefully for others. My goal is one of freedom from self-oppression, even if it only ever makes it to those that I teach. Everything has to start somewhere.

Anyway, I will leave you to your continued flaming and go lift some weights. I have a feeling anything else I say will either be repeating myself, or falling on deaf ears. Cheers, all.

Good stuff, men. As for Vulcan’s post, I would only add:

  1. The study of English - both language and literature - should not be stained with pop garbage like gender theory.

  2. No man should ever be interested in gender theory except to refute it (thanks Neph)

  3. Conspiracies must have someone behind them with an agenda - otherwise it isn’t a conspiracy. Conspiracies also imply bad faith - as in, someone thought it up one day to get some advantage over someone else. Nope.

  4. Gender is an outgrowth of nature and natural relationships. How quickly we forget that hardly 150 years ago, the health and success of your family was built on bone, muscle, brains, and protecting yourself from the dangers of the world (dangers not found, for example, at the corner Starbucks or on a bean bag in front of a plasma screen TV). The relationship between men and women was forged then, way back then, not on some academic fantasy, but based on years of experience and biology.

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
As for my other criticizers, I’m not sure where you got racist from. Noteably, red-neck is not necessarily based on race; it is based on ignorance, at least where I come from. If it has other connotations where you are, I apologize. And as a sidenote, aren’t you making comments on my intelligence and ability from behind your keyboard? How is it different when I do it?[/quote]

I don’t know where the hell you are from - but I have never seen a black redneck. I have never seen an hispanic redneck. Redneck is a racial slur used to conotate ignorant, poor white people. It is not used in any other context. And yes I find it extremely offensive.

I called you a stupid college kid. There is no way you can construe that to be a racist comment. If you want to call me an ignorant old man - be my guest. Just leave race out of it.

You hurled racial slurs from behind the safety of your keyboard. Would you call me a stupid redneck to my face? I seriously doubt you would have the balls to pull that one off.

I am not ashamed to say anyththing I wrote right to your face.

[quote]At any rate, I can refute your entire argument with one sentence:
I PAY MY OWN WAY. That’s right, I get 0 help from “Mommy and Daddy,” and haven’t since I moved out at age 18. It means that I have to work my ass off, as well as accumulating student loans, but it all sits squarely on MY shoulders. I also operate a small business on the side, building and repairing computers. I don’t do wonderfully, but it pays for my protein. As for considering myself wonderful or more intelligent…far from it. I’m just more open-minded, quite obviously, evidenced by the fact that you feel the need to angrily attack rather than calmly discuss ideas that undermine your current paradigm. I’m also not saying that university makes people more intelligent–far from it. The stupid remain stupid, and the smart remain smart. University is merely a tool to help on one’s journey out of ignorance, if one so desires.[/quote]

Good for you. Seriously. Not many stupid college kids even know what a job is, much less how much tuition costs. You have at least one admirable quality about you.

BUT - you are still ignorant. Only living life will show you that. I promise you that when you are 30 - 35, you will understand the concept of being a stupid college kid.

The wisest man I ever knew never made it past 3rd grade. Don’t put too much stock in the bullshit they feed you in college. All college does is prove that you can stay drunk for 4 years and still get to most of your classes on time.

The best advice I ever received after getting my B.S. degree was this: “The sooner you realize that you don’t know shit, the sooner you will really start learning.”

People hate college kids that are all think and no proof. They are like a yapping mut that just won’t shut the fuck up. Learn to shut the fuck up. No one will ever think you are as smart as you think you are. That’s a fact.

I still don’t understand the value. What I mean is, what do you do when you get out of college occupation wise? I can see teaching potentially, but it seems that you desire to be some sort of therapist…?

So you want to rid society of gender roles…? I’m not sure I even understand what you mean. You say you want to enable men to be ballet dancers, women to be “insert traditional male occupation.” In case you didn’t know this, there are male dancers. There are male cheerleaders. There are women mechanics. There are male flight attendants and male nurses. There are women doctors and women boxers…etc,etc. You insult us all by implying that none of us are capable of rising above societal pressures and doing what it is exactly that we want to do. Some of us are stronger willed and more highly motivated than this…

So I guess we are talking gender roles in a statistics manner…there are more male professional football players than women…who fucking cares? What is the point of all this diversity for the sake of diversity crap! I really don’t get it. How is the world a better place when we (eventually) attempt to force a 50% male-female ratio in everything so as not to seem unfair? And this is not an outrageous proposition (50-50); one of my buddies got rejected by a med school that off the record enforces a 50-50 split. Yes, lets screw the more qualified applicant so that life is “fair”. I really don’t get it; I’m not sure I even can.

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:
Thankyou for an interesting and intelligent post, Mike. To answer you, I think your problems with my argument are not necessarily IN my argument. I’m not arguing FOR metrosexuality. I’m arguing that in order to be considered a man, males should not have to conform to a predetermined “macho” role. In fact, I fully agree that metrosexuality is a pose, for the most part…however, I think that aligning oneself as a polar opposite to metrosexuality, merely to get as far away from it as possible has horrible ramifications for personal identity. A man straining to be something he is not is always going to be disappointed, regardless of whether his goal is to be he-man, or a southern bell.[/quote]

My point exactly. I, too, laugh at the metrosexual guys, but I also laugh at the “macho” guys who exhibit false bravado. I’ve known guys who won’t do any housework because it’s “women’s work.” Good luck with that. Part of being a true man is being a good husband and father. I’ve done my share of dishes and laundry. Yesterday I volunteered at my daughter’s school. There were three moms there who volunteered and they were hot 30-something women with whom I got to spend some time. There was no downside to my being there. I also watch football and laugh like a maniac at “guy humor” movies while my wife looks at me like I’m an idiot.

Also my point exactly. I actually had a friend who wouldn’t let his daughter watch football because it was a “boy” thing to do. I’m no expert in child development, but I really have no worries that watching sports will cause a change in a girl’s sexual orientation.

You didn’t say anything to offend me so perhaps I’m more sympathetic to your situation. It’s true that there’s no substitute for experience, and looking back I realize that I too was very dumb in college. It’s true - college kids are dumb. But the solution isn’t to bash a college kid (unless they really, really deserve it). Rather, us wise old farts should offer our wisdom in a constructive manner. Keep reading, studying, thinking, and working at your job. You have a pretty good start, here.

Whatever - the feminization movement will run into a wall once women who previously wanted metro boys realize they still need someone to squash the bugs !

troop

This is pretty long, but very, very worth the read and completely on topic re. the feminization of the modern male.

The Pussification of the Western Male
By: Kim du Toit
November 5, 2003 02:24am

We have become a nation of women.

It wasn?t always this way, of course. There was a time when men put their signatures to a document, knowing full well that this single act would result in their execution if captured, and in the forfeiture of their property to the State. Their wives and children would be turned out by the soldiers, and their farms and businesses most probably given to someone who didn?t sign the document.

There was a time when men went to their certain death, with expressions like ?You all can go to hell. I?m going to Texas.? (Davy Crockett, to the House of Representatives, before going to the Alamo.)

There was a time when men went to war, sometimes against their own families, so that other men could be free. And there was a time when men went to war because we recognized evil when we saw it, and knew that it had to be stamped out.

There was even a time when a President of the United States threatened to punch a man in the face and kick him in the balls, because the man had the temerity to say bad things about the President?s daughter?s singing.

We?re not like that anymore.

Now, little boys in grade school are suspended for playing cowboys and Indians, cops and crooks, and all the other familiar variations of ?good guy vs. bad guy? that helped them learn, at an early age, what it was like to have decent men hunt you down, because you were a lawbreaker.

Now, men are taught that violence is bad?that when a thief breaks into your house, or threatens you in the street, that the proper way to deal with this is to ?give him what he wants?, instead of taking a horsewhip to the rascal or shooting him dead where he stands.

Now, men?s fashion includes not a man dressed in a three-piece suit, but a tight sweater worn by a man with breasts.

Now, warning labels are indelibly etched into gun barrels, as though men have somehow forgotten that guns are dangerous things.

Now, men are given Ritalin as little boys, so that their natural aggressiveness, curiosity and restlessness can be controlled, instead of nurtured and directed.

And finally, our President, who happens to have been a qualified fighter pilot, lands on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit, and is immediately dismissed with words like ?swaggering?, ?macho? and the favorite epithet of Euro girly-men, ?cowboy?. Of course he was bound to get that reaction?and most especially from the Press in Europe, because the process of male pussification Over There is almost complete.

How did we get to this?

In the first instance, what we have to understand is that America is first and foremost, a culture dominated by one figure: Mother. It wasn?t always so: there was a time when it was Father who ruled the home, worked at his job, and voted.

But in the twentieth century, women became more and more involved in the body politic, and in industry, and in the media?and mostly, this has not been a good thing. When women got the vote, it was inevitable that government was going to become more powerful, more intrusive, and more ?protective? (ie. more coddling), because women are hard-wired to treasure security more than uncertainty and danger. It was therefore inevitable that their feminine influence on politics was going to emphasize (lowercase ?s?) social security.

I am aware of the fury that this statement is going to arouse, and I don?t care a fig.

What I care about is the fact that since the beginning of the twentieth century, there has been a concerted campaign to denigrate men, to reduce them to figures of fun, and to render them impotent, figuratively speaking.

I?m going to illustrate this by talking about TV, because TV is a reliable barometer of our culture.

In the 1950s, the TV Dad was seen as the lovable goofball?perhaps the beginning of the trend?BUT he was still the one who brought home the bacon, and was the main source of discipline (think of the line: ?Wait until your father gets home!?).

From that, we went to this: the Cheerios TV ad.

Now, for those who haven?t seen this piece of shit, I?m going to go over it, from memory, because it epitomizes everything I hate about the campaign to pussify men. The scene opens at the morning breakfast table, where the two kids are sitting with Dad at the table, while Mom prepares stuff on the kitchen counter. The dialogue goes something like this:

Little girl (note, not little boy): Daddy, why do we eat Cheerios?
Dad: Because they contain fiber, and all sorts of stuff that?s good for the heart. I eat it now, because of that.
LG: Did you always eat stuff that was bad for your heart, Daddy?
Dad (humorously): I did, until I met your mother.
Mother (not humorously): Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he met your mother.

Now, every time I see that TV ad, I have to be restrained from shooting the TV with a .45 Colt. If you want a microcosm of how men have become less than men, this is the perfect example.

What Dad should have replied to Mommy?s little dig: Yes, Sally, that?s true: I did do a lot of stupid things before I met your mother. I even slept with your Aunt Ruth a few times, before I met your mother.

That?s what I would have said, anyway, if my wife had ever attempted to castrate me in front of the kids like that.

But that?s not what men do, of course. What this guy is going to do is smile ruefully, finish his cereal, and then go and fuck his secretary, who doesn?t try to cut his balls off on a daily basis. Then, when the affair is discovered, people are going to rally around the castrating bitch called his wife, and call him all sorts of names. He?ll lose custody of his kids, and they will be brought up by our ultimate modern-day figure of sympathy: The Single Mom.

You know what? Some women deserve to be single moms.

When I first started this website, I think my primary aim was to blow off steam at the stupidity of our society.

Because I have fairly set views on what constitutes right and wrong, I have no difficulty in calling Bill Clinton, for example, a fucking liar and hypocrite.

But most of all, I do this website because I love being a man. Amongst other things, I talk about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools?all the things that being a man entails. All this stuff gives me pleasure.

And it doesn?t take much to see when all the things I love are being threatened: for instance, when Tim Allen?s excellent comedy routine on being a man is reduced to a fucking sitcom called Home Improvement. The show should have been called Man Improvement, because that?s what every single plotline entailed: turning a man into a ?better? person, instead of just leaving him alone to work on restoring the vintage sports car in his garage. I stopped watching the show after about four episodes.

(?The Man Show? was better, at least for the first season?men leering at chicks, men fucking around with ridiculous games like ?pin the bra on the boobies?, men having beer-drinking competitions, and women on trampolines. Excellent stuff, only not strong enough. I don?t watch it anymore, either, because it?s plain that the idea has been subverted by girly-men, and turned into a parody of itself.)

Finally, we come to the TV show which to my mind epitomizes everything bad about what we have become: Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Playing on the homo Bravo Channel, this piece of excrement has taken over the popular culture by storm (and so far, the only counter has been the wonderful South Park episode which took it apart for the bullshit it is).

I?m sorry, but the premise of the show nauseates me. A bunch of homosexuals trying to ?improve? ordinary men into something ?better? (ie. more acceptable to women): changing the guy?s clothes, his home decor, his music?for fuck?s sake, what kind of girly-man would allow these simpering butt-bandits to change his life around?

Yes, the men are, by and large, slobs. Big fucking deal. Last time I looked, that?s normal. Men are slobs, and that only changes when women try to civilize them by marriage. That?s the natural order of things.

You know the definition of homosexual men we used in Chicago? ?Men with small dogs who own very tidy apartments.?

Real men, on the other hand, have big fucking mean-ass dogs: Rhodesian ridgebacks, bull terriers and Rottweilers, or else working dogs like pointers or retrievers which go hunting with them and slobber all over the furniture.

Women own lapdogs.

Which is why women are trying to get dog-fighting and cock-fighting banned?they?d ban boxing too, if they could?because it?s ?mean and cruel?. No shit, Shirley. Hell, I don?t like the idea of fighting dogs, either, but I don?t have a problem with men who do. Dogs and cocks fight. So do men. No wonder we have an affinity for it.

My website has become fairly popular with men, and in the beginning, this really surprised me, because I didn?t think I was doing anything special.

That?s not what I think now. I must have had well over five thousand men write to me to say stuff like ?Yes! I agree! I was so angry when I read about [insert atrocity of choice], but I thought I was the only one.?

No, you?re not alone, my friends, and nor am I.

Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We?re sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we?re sick of having girly-men like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on ?what is a man?; we?re sick of women treating us like children, and we?re really fucking sick of girly-men politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.

When Annika Sorenstam was allowed to play in that tournament on the men?s PGA tour, all the men should have refused to play?Vijay Singh was the only one with balls to stand up for a principle, and he was absolutely excoriated for being a ?chauvinist?. Bullshit. He wasn?t a chauvinist, he was being a man. All the rest of the players?Woods, Mickelson, the lot?are girls by comparison. And, needless to say, Vijay isn?t an American, nor a European, which is probably why he still has a pair hanging between his legs, and they?re not hanging on the wall as his wife?s trophy.

Fuck this, I?m sick of it.

I don?t see why I should put up with this bullshit any longer?hell, I don?t see why any man should put up with this bullshit any longer.

I don?t see why men should have become feminized, except that we allowed it to happen?and you know why we let it happen? Because it?s goddamned easier to do so. Unfortunately, we?ve allowed it to go too far, and our maleness has become too pussified for words.

At this point, I could have gone two ways: the first would be to say, ??and I don?t know if we?ll get it back. The process has become too entrenched, the cultural zeitgeist of men as girls has become part of the social fabric, and there?s not much we can do about it.?

But I?m not going to do that. To quote John Belushi (who was, incidentally, a real man and not a fucking woman): ?Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor??

Well, I?m not going to quit. Fuck that. One of the characteristics of the non-pussified man (and this should strike fear into the hearts of women and girly-men everywhere) is that he never quits just because the odds seem overwhelming. Omaha Beach, guys.

I want a real man as President?not Al Gore, who had to hire a consultant to show him how to be an Alpha Male, and french-kiss his wife on live TV to ?prove? to the world that he was a man, when we all knew that real men don?t have to do that shit.

And I want the Real Man President to surround himself with other Real Men, like Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, and yes, Rice (who is more of a Real Man than those asswipes Colin Powell and Norman Mineta).

I want our government to be more like Dad?kind, helpful, but not afraid to punish us when we fuck up, instead of helping us excuse our actions.

I want our government of real men to start rolling back the Nanny State, in all its horrible manifestations of over-protectiveness, intrusiveness and ?Mommy Knows Best What?s Good For You? regulations.

I want our culture to become more male?and not the satirical kind of male, like The Man Show, or the cartoonish figures of Stallone, Van Damme or Schwartzenegger. (Note to the Hollywood execs: We absolutely fucking loathe chick movies about feelings and relationships and all that feminine jive. We want more John Waynes, Robert Mitchums, Bruce Willises, and Clint Eastwoods. Never mind that it?s simplistic? we like simple, we are simple, we are men?our lives are uncomplicated, and we like it that way. We Were Soldiers was a great movie, and you know why? Because you could have cut out all the female parts, and it still would have been a great movie, because it was about Real Men. Try cutting out all the female parts in a Woody Allen movie?you?d end up with the opening and closing credits.)

I want our literature to become more male, less female. Men shouldn?t buy ?self-help? books unless the subject matter is car maintenance, golf swing improvement or how to disassemble a fucking Browning BAR. We don?t improve ourselves, we improve our stuff.

And finally, I want men everywhere to going back to being Real Men. To open doors for women, to drive fast cars, to smoke cigars after a meal, to get drunk occasionally and, in the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the last of the Real Men: ?to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.?

In every sense of the word. We know what the word ?is? means.

Because that?s all that being a Real Man involves. You don?t have to become a fucking cartoon male, either: I?m not going back to stoning women for adultery like those Muslim assholes do, nor am I suggesting we support that perversion of being a Real Man, gangsta rap artists (those fucking pussies?they wouldn?t last thirty seconds against a couple of genuine tough guys that I know).

Speaking of rap music, do you want to know why more White boys buy that crap than Black boys do? You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen?

It?s a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose.

Because only the strong men propagate.

And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator?s uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful pussy available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.

And he won?t. Because Rummy?s been married to the same woman for fifty years, and he wouldn?t toss that away for a quickie. He?s a Real Man. No wonder the Euros hate and fear him.

We?d better get more like him, we?d better become more like him, because if we don?t, men will become a footnote to history.

It seems to me that those of you whine the most about this topic are nothing more than insecure boys. Grow up.

Stop acting like you weight train for a reason other than to get noticed by women, which is exactly what ‘metrosexuals’ do, but with style and fashion.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
vulcan500rider wrote:
Interesting idea, but why is it then that men don’t pop out of the womb larger, with better muscular development, and a knowledge of hunting and fighting? BECAUSE IT ALL HAS TO BE TRAINED.

So, as a gender, women could (on average) be as massive and strong as men? What support do you have for this proposition?[/quote]

Possibly, but i believe its probably closer to the same reason why no animal in the animal kingdom is born a miniturized version of its parents with full knowledge of its surroundings, dangers, food sources, tools or anything else. Dont believe me? try teaching a chimpanzee, that has a genetic make- up within 1% of what ours is, the finer points of english literature, art, or anything else besides how to crack a coconut with a rock and you will see my point. Minute differences, although much more minute, could make a tremendous difference in our dispositions.

Let us not forget that we are all animals here, and that virtually all of God’s creatures, especially mammals have dividing traits between the genders.

Who here believes the the changes in our gender rols have benifetted us as a whole? are we really a better society than that of our forefathers? that is a by far more noble question, because we have some big shoes to fill.

Great post, shawninjapan!

[quote]vulcan500rider wrote:

As for the differences between the way boys and girls/men and women think, yes they are there. No doubt in my mind about this. The problem is how far do we take this approach? Is it really true that boys are better in math than girls? My daughter is great at math, yet she also likes lots of girly things so I’m not worried that she’ll “go gay” later in life. And what about music? Would you consider a guy who likes classical music manly or metro? Before you answer, think about the fact that studies have suggested that has found correlation between musical ability and math ability. Beethoven was able to compose even when he became deaf because he found mathematical relationships between the notes.

The guys that go for the metro thing are followers. If the trend were back to the grunge thing and it became “hip” to wear flannel and lift weights, these same guys would be following that trend. Sure, on the surface they would appear more “manly,” but it would be just that - an appearance. They’d still be followers blindly going after the latest trend to become “popular” or accepted.

They would still lack the ability that shows true character and emotional maturity - the ability to think for themselves. This is what makes leaders and creates success in the real world. This is the problem with society - lack of critical, independent thinkers who have drive and initiative. Metrosexuality is just a symptom of this problem.

Thankyou for an interesting and intelligent post, Mike. To answer you, I think your problems with my argument are not necessarily IN my argument. I’m not arguing FOR metrosexuality. I’m arguing that in order to be considered a man, males should not have to conform to a predetermined “macho” role. In fact, I fully agree that metrosexuality is a pose, for the most part…however, I think that aligning oneself as a polar opposite to metrosexuality, merely to get as far away from it as possible has horrible ramifications for personal identity. A man straining to be something he is not is always going to be disappointed, regardless of whether his goal is to be he-man, or a southern bell.

I would consider both your daughter’s interest in math, and any male’s interest in classical music to have little or nothing to do with their gender role. I don’t think it is an interest in “girly things” that makes a woman a woman, nor an interest in “manly” things that makes a man become a man, nor do I believe that it predetermines sexual orientation. Regardless of what your daughter is into, I don’t think that there is much chance she will “go gay” unless she is sexually attracted toward women.

As for my other criticizers, I’m not sure where you got racist from. Noteably, red-neck is not necessarily based on race; it is based on ignorance, at least where I come from. If it has other connotations where you are, I apologize. And as a sidenote, aren’t you making comments on my intelligence and ability from behind your keyboard? How is it different when I do it?

At any rate, I can refute your entire argument with one sentence:
I PAY MY OWN WAY. That’s right, I get 0 help from “Mommy and Daddy,” and haven’t since I moved out at age 18. It means that I have to work my ass off, as well as accumulating student loans, but it all sits squarely on MY shoulders. I also operate a small business on the side, building and repairing computers. I don’t do wonderfully, but it pays for my protein. As for considering myself wonderful or more intelligent…far from it. I’m just more open-minded, quite obviously, evidenced by the fact that you feel the need to angrily attack rather than calmly discuss ideas that undermine your current paradigm. I’m also not saying that university makes people more intelligent–far from it. The stupid remain stupid, and the smart remain smart. University is merely a tool to help on one’s journey out of ignorance, if one so desires.

As for your comment ZedLeppin, consider a set of twins brothers, one put into an abusive, poverty stricken home, and one put into a loving, supportive, middle-class family in which the father is available and gentle. Which one is going to be more messed in the head and have major issues to deal with? Nature vs nurture just does not work.

As for what I hope to do with the idea of gender roles, and why it’s important? How many men have poor self-esteem that they need to artificially boost in order to feel good about themselves? Many self-esteem problems arise directly from an inconsistency between a boy’s abilities and society’s expectations on them. How do I know this? I have been a teaching assistant through every level of education, INCLUDING university. I have worked with more confused young men than I thought there were–which prompted me to look into masculinity studies. Not all men meet the normative standard of “hegemonic masculinity” (basically the pinnacle as a short summation of a VERY loaded term) In fact, damned FEW men meet that standard, and most fight inner battles between wanting to make their own way and dealing with the expectations or their fathers, and their societies.

My information does not come from ONE prof, because there are precisely zero profs teaching this at my university at the present time. Masculinity seems to be the big taboo subject that no one wants to touch, and the gross majority of men get angry (as you may notice in the responses to what I’ve said) when it is questioned. Looking at literature through the lens of gender theory lets people see how their gender roles have evolved and why. The goal? To eliminate pre-destined gender roles and replace them with equality, and a sense of personal choice. I would like to see a world where the boy who takes up ballet and does well (providing he can make money and pay his own way) is as valued as the one who becomes a mechanic, or a businessman (providing he can make money and make his own way–yes I meant to repeat myself for emphasis)

The true reason that I’m interested in most of this is simple: know thyself. I don’t like the idea of making choices based on preconceptions that are untrue, so I seek to illuminate truth for myself, and hopefully for others. My goal is one of freedom from self-oppression, even if it only ever makes it to those that I teach. Everything has to start somewhere.

Anyway, I will leave you to your continued flaming and go lift some weights. I have a feeling anything else I say will either be repeating myself, or falling on deaf ears. Cheers, all.[/quote]

Vulcan,

Isn’t it reasonable that your theories on gender roles are what is causing this metrosexual fad and the fad in general is what us stereotypical “real men” have a problem with? Perhaps this fad needs examination as opposed to why it is totally natural, because it is not natural.

My wife worries about her looks, nails, hair, fashion (hers and mine), pop culture, knitting a sweater, worrying about my son getting injured on a dirt bike, etc.

Me…I worry about paying the bills, fixing the cars- keeping them running & making sure they don’t leave my wife stranded, arguing with the cable company, making investments, fixing the dishwasher, keeping my sons dirt bike running, I don’t give a shit about fashion, etc. - all “manly” types of things.

Your average metrosexual in Beverly hills is worried about his nail appointment, waxing his eyebrows, his new hair due, what clothes are in style and fashionable, etc. - all feminine traits.

He doesn’t worry about manly things because society, for him, seems to have moved in a direction where he doesn’t need to worry about “manly” things. His car breaks, he calls triple AAA, has a rental car delivered to him using his cell phone, dishwasher breaks…he calls a “manly man” to fix it, needs to defend himself or his girl…he stalls and seeks out help- calls police or security, and so on…

The guy in Beverly Hills that is as useless as Paris hilton is out of line with the masculine gender role prevalent in all of history, because this masculine gender role is naturally what we fell into. It seems this shift in roles is written off by these metro girly men as appropriate because gender roles are not natural and instead are a learned behavior they can choose to follow, or not follow.

And rest assured, whenever one of these tools finds themselves in trouble, and they need help from a “real man” their woman is generally looking at the “real man” as her knight in shining armor, within reason as far as the guy being less than repulsive. When money/wealth/ and power are out of the picture, I find women prefer functional over pretty in their men. And when women settle for these metro guys, they find out they are useless and the glamour of their metro habits and lavish lifestyle wear off, it starts to bother the girl and they start looking for the “bad boy” to tame their shrew. Why? Because it is not “natural” to be useless with a penis. It is not learned, it is what we are driven to do naturally. If you think these clowns don’t feel like a turd when they can’t defend their girl, or get stranded because the car won’t start, then you are wrong. Any man feels like shit when he cannot defend himself, or take control of a sitation and not be a useless tool.

Seriously Vulcan, are you one of the metro sexuals? Do you have manicures and facials? No flame intended, just curious.

One last thing, if you argue humans do not have instincts, I argue humans do have insticts, and human instincts are exactly what mankind has done throughout history. Our instincts drive us to do it.

[quote]casslerock wrote:
Who here believes the the changes in our gender rols have benifetted us as a whole? [/quote]

What do you mean by changes in gender roles? When a man gives birth, then I’ll worry about changing gender roles.

[quote]casslerock wrote:
are we really a better society than that of our forefathers? that is a by far more noble question, because we have some big shoes to fill.
[/quote]

I absolutely believe that our society today is better than it was, and I also believe that the future will be better than it is today.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Vulcan,

Isn’t it reasonable that your theories on gender roles are what is causing this metrosexual fad and the fad in general is what us stereotypical “real men” have a problem with? Perhaps this fad needs examination as opposed to why it is totally natural, because it is not natural.

My wife worries about her looks, nails, hair, fashion (hers and mine), pop culture, knitting a sweater, worrying about my son getting injured on a dirt bike, etc.

Me…I worry about paying the bills, fixing the cars- keeping them running & making sure they don’t leave my wife stranded, arguing with the cable company, making investments, fixing the dishwasher, keeping my sons dirt bike running, I don’t give a shit about fashion, etc. - all “manly” types of things.

Your average metrosexual in Beverly hills is worried about his nail appointment, waxing his eyebrows, his new hair due, what clothes are in style and fashionable, etc. - all feminine traits.

He doesn’t worry about manly things because society, for him, seems to have moved in a direction where he doesn’t need to worry about “manly” things. His car breaks, he calls triple AAA, has a rental car delivered to him using his cell phone, dishwasher breaks…he calls a “manly man” to fix it, needs to defend himself or his girl…he stalls and seeks out help- calls police or security, and so on…

The guy in Beverly Hills that is as useless as Paris hilton is out of line with the masculine gender role prevalent in all of history, because this masculine gender role is naturally what we fell into. It seems this shift in roles is written off by these metro girly men as appropriate because gender roles are not natural and instead are a learned behavior they can choose to follow, or not follow.

And rest assured, whenever one of these tools finds themselves in trouble, and they need help from a “real man” their woman is generally looking at the “real man” as her knight in shining armor, within reason as far as the guy being less than repulsive. When money/wealth/ and power are out of the picture, I find women prefer functional over pretty in their men. And when women settle for these metro guys, they find out they are useless and the glamour of their metro habits and lavish lifestyle wear off, it starts to bother the girl and they start looking for the “bad boy” to tame their shrew. Why? Because it is not “natural” to be useless with a penis. It is not learned, it is what we are driven to do naturally. If you think these clowns don’t feel like a turd when they can’t defend their girl, or get stranded because the car won’t start, then you are wrong. Any man feels like shit when he cannot defend himself, or take control of a sitation and not be a useless tool.
[/quote]

Dude, you’re a cook - isn’t that a woman’s job. Just kidding! I couldn’t help myself.

I think what you’ve described here is the difference between a “grown up” male with responsibilities (wife, kids, job, home) and a 20-something “boy” living at home. Is there really such a thing as a metrosexual who is also married and has kids? Seriously, I thought the whole metrosexual fad was a way for 20-something guys to get chicks. I guess my question is whether this is something that boys will eventually “outgrow.” My priorities changed drastically once I became a father. This is just a fad that will pass.

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Reading an article about Rocky, Stallone has a great quote. Lately, he’s been trying to cast a young man to star opposite him in “Rambo IV,” which he will begin shooting in January. “I’m looking for the next Robert Mitchum or Steve McQueen, and they don’t exist,” he says. “All these young actors are tough in, like, ‘The O.C.’ They’re watching the Super Bowl at Frederic Fekkai [salon], getting highlights and a manicure. What happened to beer and chips and scratching your b—s?”

Amen[/quote]

O stallone, maybe he should cast Mo Rocca opposite in him in Rambo 4. I’d like to see that.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

Dude, you’re a cook - isn’t that a woman’s job. Just kidding! I couldn’t help myself.

I think what you’ve described here is the difference between a “grown up” male with responsibilities (wife, kids, job, home) and a 20-something “boy” living at home. Is there really such a thing as a metrosexual who is also married and has kids? Seriously, I thought the whole metrosexual fad was a way for 20-something guys to get chicks. I guess my question is whether this is something that boys will eventually “outgrow.” My priorities changed drastically once I became a father. This is just a fad that will pass.[/quote]

Did I leave out that I do all the cooking in my house? Even though I married a spanish woman?

Doh, it weakens what I was saying.

I live outside Washington DC in Virginia, and the number of useless yuppie men that are useless boggles my mind. While not your stereotypical metro guy, they are nontheless useless. Can’t even hook up jumper cables. There is definitely a seperate class in my area…useless yuppie facial getting “men,” and the men that are not useless that don’t get facials and can hook up jumper cables.

As I said, I’ve generally said my piece, and I will try to stay back and let others speak. However, I think there’s a few questions and statements that I need to address.

First, to RainJack, I’m from Canada, and at least in the area where I live, redneck is a non-race specific title, applying to anyone who has a rural, ignorant “it is cause it is and I don’t want to hear any different” type attitude. It can even be used semi-endearingly such as “you’re such a redneck,” without deserving a punch. The word that means what you describe here is “honky” THAT will earn a punch in the face. Again, I apologize, I should have considered possible different connotations.

I have also realized more and more often as I have grown that I know far too little. In response to that, however, I have avoided using my years in university as one long drinking binge, and instead worked to fill the many gaps in my knowledge base. I still have a LONG way to go, but I DO have a strong foundation on the precepts of gender theory. Experience may enrich the way I use that knowledge, but living longer does not take the place of studying new concepts; a 70 year-old does not achieve an inherent grasp of micro-biology without ever opening a book.

I know how to shut the fuck up when I don’t know what I’m talking about. That’s why I don’t go out of my way to advise you on weightlifting. How much gender theory have you taken? Have you read the work of Connell, or even Freud? Give it a try and see what you think of it. You’re working off pure gut reaction to a concept right now without having any foundation in theory. Would you offer an opinion on how to do squats if you had never even THOUGHT about form before? I sure as hell wouldn’t.

FOR PETEDACOOK:
No, I’m not metrosexual. I’m 225lbs, can barely coordinate colors in my clothing (according to my girlfriend) and I do any number of typical “manly” things. I weightlift, fix my own car, do my own carpentry and renovations, and eat lots of steak. I’m also not FOR metrosexuality–as mentioned, I think it’s more a BS fad than anything, and I have problem with anyone who goes out of their way to be useless. I personally think probably 90% of the rich and famous are just a waste of oxygen. Paris Hilton tops my list for useless. I just disagree that a man has to conform to a macho role to be a man. Some men are naturally more effeminate, or into things not considered “masculine.”

FOR JPERSINGER: I realize that there are now women filling traditionally male roles in society and vice versa, and am quite happy about it. Do I think we need 50/50 diversification? HELL NO! I would just like to see a world where those that do go against “traditional” gender roles aren’t mocked for it and considered “lesser” men or “butch” women. As for jobs, I hope that we can one day escape the bleeding heart liberal bullshit that led to “workplace diversity” and have candidates apply without an issue of gender, race, or religion even applying to the situation. If you’re what the company needs, you should get the job.

FOR MIKETHEBEAR:
Again, excellent posts. Maybe it is just b/c I didn’t piss you off, but your insight is excellent. I agree that I have a lot to learn, and that experience will bring it. I look at my father and marvel over the command of knowledge he has–though I have to laugh at his complete inability to understand computers.
I too find myself disgusted by how far metrosexuality has gone, but I have a feeling it finds its roots in becoming the opposite to the “macho” ideal. I personally hope both can be “grown out of,” so that people can start existing on their own instead of being drawn toward ridiculous ideals just to feel included.

From here, I think I’ll leave things, unless specific questions are addressed to me. Stay healthy, lift hard.

[quote]shawninjapan wrote:
This is pretty long, but very, very worth the read and completely on topic re. the feminization of the modern male. [/quote]

I’d give it a C-. Some of his thoughts on how the younger generation is being raised sans gender roles and playing cops and robbers to instill basic values is good stuff.

If he had kept his political cock-sucking out of it, it would have been far more effective.

Can’t recall ever hearing any of these adjectives applied to W in this particular event.

I recall terms like “phony”, “deserter”, and “douche”, but never “swaggering”, or “macho”.

WTF???

Uh, yeah, because he can buy the pussy. What the hell does this have to do with being manly?

Wow, I’m beginning to think this guy has a raging sexual attraction for these guys. Who in their right mind looks at Donald Rumsfeld and thinks, “man, I bet chicks want to fuck him!”???

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
I live outside Washington DC in Virginia, and the number of useless yuppie men that are useless boggles my mind. While not your stereotypical metro guy, they are nontheless useless. Can’t even hook up jumper cables. There is definitely a seperate class in my area…useless yuppie facial getting “men,” and the men that are not useless that don’t get facials and can hook up jumper cables.
[/quote]

This is indeed sad, but stuff like this you learn from your father. So, if these guys didn’t know how to hook up jumper cables, chances are that their fathers may not have known either, and the problem goes back farther than we thought. My stepfather didn’t know how to do this stuff either and thus couldn’t teach me. He was quite useless. I wanted to learn, but didn’t have a teacher. Fortunately, I eventually figured it out, on my own. I guess some guys don’t bother trying to figure it out on their own. But that’s an ambition problem.