Apparently:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1647452,00.html
I think it’s true, and I agree. Look at the way most public schools are run. Rather than try and cultivate adolescent boys abilities with strong, capable, male role models and teachers, we have mostly women (and I’m not bashing them, but the system in which they are taking place) that try and suppress everything that is “Predominantly male”.
It seems that “macho” is under fire in our society, especially at the teen level, because it’s now “too chauvanistic” or “offensive”. I see this attitude in society these days something along the lines of “Well women were dominated for so long and now men have to take the back of the bus”.
Look at job opportunities: have decent grades, clean cut looks, qualifications and a dick between your legs and interview against a blonde with big tits and a hot ass and see who gets the job. Coddling isn’t going to get anybody anywhere, and the sooner schools and institutions learn that, the better.
In the politically correct world of today there is no real need for the male hormone anymore. Reproduction can be done through science and women can fight wars as well as men because physical strength and aggressiveness are not the prevailing factors anymore. For instance most gay males seem to lean towards feminine characteristics while most female lesbians retain their own without developing typical testosterone embedded traits.
The men will either have to return the world into its simpler more barbaric excistence or somehow find a way to adjust into this new frustration inducing, multitasking and subtlety demanding society.
As a male I truly feel out of place at the world of today.
Edit: LOL!
You said it man, I couldn’t have put it better.
[quote]R@NE wrote:
In the politically correct world of today there is no real need for the male hormone anymore. Reproduction can be done through science and women can fight wars as well as men because physical strength and aggressiveness are not the prevailing factors anymore. For instance most gay males seem to lean towards feminine characteristics while most female lesbians retain their own without developing typical testosterone embedded traits.
The men will either have to return the world into its simpler more barbaric excistence or somehow find a way to adjust into this new frustration inducing, multitasking and subtlety demanding society.
As a male I truly feel out of place at the world of today.
Edit: LOL!
[/quote]
Male hormone is still needed, commonsense however, isn’t doing to hot.
Females aren’t as effective as males in war. One word. WOMB
gay males are SILLY! and IMO I see more butch Lesbians in everyday life, although the lesbians on my computer are like you allude to, very feminine. And another thing! Gay males have to watch what the media sells them as to what being gay is. Poor guys, it’s no wonder many of them think they need to lisp in order to get in to character. Oh yeah and gay males are using male sex hormone also, because they crave hot nasty sex just like you…well maybe not just like.
Return the world to…just no.
Or somehow find a way to adjust…EUREKA! And this is what humankind has proved good at for many many years. If anything we are adaptable.
Feel out of place? Welcome to the rest of your life.
What I found interesting is that most of the books they listed, like “The War Against Boys” and “the Last American Man” were written by women. I occaisionally listen to a women’s issue show on the radio, and they have this feminist writer who does commentary on “guy stuff”, like those Miller Lite “Man Law” commercials.
The fact that they have to bring out an intelligent, well spoken woman to explain and define something as trivial and meaningless as a beer commercial seems really petty and insecure. But people often mistakingly believe that if you define something, it gives you power over that thing, as if the boundaries that you set in words somehow extend over to reality.
But about the article itself: the writer for Time, who seems to be argueing that this is a golden age and that there are no problem for boys, is way off in one critical area, the zero tolerance violence policies in schools. Boys fight. This is normal and healthy. Children need to learn that there are limits to what you can say or do to another human being.
Or, in other words, getting your ass kicked a few times is a great way to learn respect and humility, and the best time to learn this is when you are young, it minimizes the potential damage. An eight year old isn’t going to knock out another eight year old’s teeth or break his jaw. And most of the time, after I fought somebody, no matter who won we got along fine. It relieved the tension.
I think the rise of real violence in schools, like Columbine, is the result of the removal of the pressure valve of fighting. Obiviously judgement and common sense need to be applied, bullying shouldn’t be tolerated and problem children need extra attention. This is why we need to trust in good teachers and principals, in human beings, not in rules and policies.
[quote]gatesoftanhauser wrote:
Look at job opportunities: have decent grades, clean cut looks, qualifications and a dick between your legs and interview against a blonde with big tits and a hot ass and see who gets the job. Coddling isn’t going to get anybody anywhere, and the sooner schools and institutions learn that, the better.[/quote]
The world in which we live is far from ideal. Yes. It is unfortunate that our society is not a meritocracy and I certainly can’t argue the existence of reverse discrimination. From time to time, minorities and women are chosen over white men and this is justified by a company’s quest for “diversity.” It’s not fair and I, too, believe you should earn your status.
BUT…I am not personally aware of any evidence that blonds with “big tits” and “hot asses” are typically chosen over men. There seems to be an assumption that an attractive woman would not have similar credentials to a man. Despite the stereotypes we constantly see in the media, blond women with tight asses can be intelligent too. Maybe that beautiful blond woman is simply better.
The article seems to suggest that everything is clear-cut…either right or wrong, male or female, beautiful or intelligent… this perspective is not helping anyone. The article presented some alarming statistics, but encouraging rigidly defined gender roles is not the solution. Society is constantly changing and so are we. Attempting to recreate a “golden age,” where boys can be boys, is not the solution.
[quote]buckeye girl wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
Look at job opportunities: have decent grades, clean cut looks, qualifications and a dick between your legs and interview against a blonde with big tits and a hot ass and see who gets the job. Coddling isn’t going to get anybody anywhere, and the sooner schools and institutions learn that, the better.
The world in which we live is far from ideal. Yes. It is unfortunate that our society is not a meritocracy and I certainly can’t argue the existence of reverse discrimination. From time to time, minorities and women are chosen over white men and this is justified by a company’s quest for “diversity.” It’s not fair and I, too, believe you should earn your status.
BUT…I am not personally aware of any evidence that blonds with “big tits” and “hot asses” are typically chosen over men. There seems to be an assumption that an attractive woman would not have similar credentials to a man. Despite the stereotypes we constantly see in the media, blond women with tight asses can be intelligent too. Maybe that beautiful blond woman is simply better.
[/quote]
The reason you’ve never seen it is because you’re not a young man vying for a job against an unqualified, hott blonde/brunette whatever. I’ve personally witnessed this and have been a victim of it too. I’ve been passed over for a hot piece of ass just because they can bat their eyes and flash some cleavage and get the horny Human Resources manager to notice them.
Besides, I made no allusion in my original post as to “intelligence levels in hott blondes” anyways. I’m simply stating what is very, very common this day and age.
(of course somewhere along the line of this thread someone will mark me as a “woman hater” or “prejudice”, just wait and see)
Testosterone is a funny thing.
[quote]gatesoftanhauser wrote:
I’ve been passed over for a hot piece of ass just because they can bat their eyes and flash some cleavage and get the horny Human Resources manager to notice them [/quote]
It is unfortunate that it happens, and women who rely on their looks to get by in life are just as pathetic as the horny human resource managers who enable them. I suppose that my point was that people make certain assumptions when talking about attractive women that are not necessarily true.
[quote]
(of course somewhere along the line of this thread someone will mark me as a “woman hater” or “prejudice”, just wait and see) [/quote]
I did not mean to imply that you were those things (sorry if it sounded that way) and hopefully no one will resort to name calling just because they disagree with a post on the thread.
[quote]gatesoftanhauser wrote:
Look at job opportunities: have decent grades, clean cut looks, qualifications and a dick between your legs and interview against a blonde with big tits and a hot ass and see who gets the job.[/quote]
You are absolutely right. I have seen it too, the hot chick will always be preferred over the guy. It has happened to me once, and yes I am bitter about it. Being ugly certainly doesn’t help either.
Seems like if you are an attractive female, or even an attractive male, people automatically think that you are intelligent, fun, and worthy.
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
You are absolutely right. I have seen it too, the hot chick will always be preferred over the guy. It has happened to me once, and yes I am bitter about it. Being ugly certainly doesn’t help either.
Seems like if you are an attractive female, or even an attractive male, people automatically think that you are intelligent, fun, and worthy.
[/quote]
It’s a sad sight that our society places emphasis on looks and success. If you’re good looking, you’ll probably be given more opportunities based on your looks. I thank God the US ARMY and the rest of the military doesn’t work that way. It may be the last example within US society that actually doesn’t reward for looks.
Beauty does play a part in the military too. In the 5 years I spent enlisted, I saw the same preferential treatment there that I do now as a civilian. Face it, people like to surround themselves with good looking people. Thats just the way it is.
I do not see unqualified, hot women getting hired over men in high-level jobs. In lower caliber jobs, yes. I do see beautiful, qualified women getting hired over EAQUALLY qualified men at high-level jobs. Were I/when I am in a hiring position, I would do the same.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I do not see unqualified, hot women getting hired over men in high-level jobs. In lower caliber jobs, yes. I do see beautiful, qualified women getting hired over EAQUALLY qualified men at high-level jobs. Were I/when I am in a hiring position, I would do the same. [/quote]
Must be nice living in Eutopia.