Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember growing up watching all those cartoons where the female is kidnapped by some evil guy who ties her up and the hero has to come save her. Those cartoons aren't on TV anymore.
Before I met my husband I dated several "modern" men. They didn't hold the door open for me, one actually thought I would pay for the dinner for both of us, one took longer to get ready than I did and was so sensitive that he cried more than me (what a turn off). Most women find characters like Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall and Daniel Day-Lewis in Last of the Mohicans to be the ultimate in masculinity.
I'll take some sweaty, hairy, manly-man that "knows best", rather than some GQ hair-gelled metro guy that grovels around at my feet whining, any day of the week.
Consider for a moment that mans rapid technological and subsequent cultural/societal advancement may play a greater role that we at first give credit to.
Over the course of thousands of years, man was the typical brutish and dominant gender that hunted and protected his family and tribe predisposing his genes to assertive and aggressive tendencies. Women were the classical nurturer so to speak, providing more towards the life giving aspects of child rearing and tribal preservation.
Then rather suddenly on the greater time scale, society complete changes and continues to accelerate this change. No longer are all the genetic predispositions towards dominant-submissive roles as important to societal survival and the perpetuation of the species.
Can it possibly be that mans technology and subsequent cultural and societal advances out paced his genetic predispositions. If this were the case then it would seem to be that we are almost in conflict with our genes as far as behavior is concerned.
I would then assert that men have had to fight or alter their behaviors far more than women have in modern times because the male genetic predispositions are needed far less in todays world than at any time in our past. It very well may be that the lack of need for such definitive gender roles of the past has merely naturally created a situation like we have today.
*shrugs* any thoughts?
Last edited by TnHilltopper; 02-28-2008 at 10:16 AM..
Reason: spelling errors
I recall reading somewhere about how, in human history, male violence was highly rewarded up until about 12,000 years ago, when humans began to gather into settlements. Rather suddenly, male violence was severely punished, and over millenia, the most violent and sociopathic males were systematically killed by "the state" for the sake of social order.
There also seems to be a big difference between violence borne from "impulse," and violence borne from "duty." Impulsive violence is the violence that disrupts society. Duty-borne violence is what you see during situations of war.
Consider for a moment that mans rapid technological and subsequent cultural/societal advancement may play a greater role that we at first give credit to.
Over the course of thousands of years, man was the typical brutish and dominant gender that hunted and protected his family and tribe predisposing his genes to assertive and aggressive tendencies. Women were the classical nurturer so to speak, providing more towards the life giving aspects of child rearing and tribal preservation.
Then rather suddenly on the greater time scale, society complete changes and continues to accelerate this change. No longer are all the genetic predispositions towards dominant-submissive roles as important to societal survival and the perpetuation of the species.
Can it possibly be that mans technology and subsequent cultural and societal advances out paced his genetic predispositions. If this were the case then it would seem to be that we are almost in conflict with our genes as far as behavior is concerned.
I would then assert that men have had to fight or alter their behaviors far more than women have in modern times because the male genetic predispositions are needed far less in todays world than at any time in our past. It very well may be that the lack of need for such definitive gender roles of the past has merely naturally created a situation like we have today.
*shrugs* any thoughts?
Boys are not be "feminized". they are being raised to fit into today's sit at your desk all day and use your mind not your body.
All children are being lobotimized, not just boys. I am a female who would have been drugged for being to rambunctious(raised pre ritalin). I was suspended for kicking a boy who dared pull my hair, the boy wasn't. and the idea that everyone is a winner and deserves the same trophy is stupid to this very competitive female who enjoyed sports all her life and worked hard to get good along with my teammates. All children are taught to fit into a mold rather than be their true selves. Am I a "masculine" female? NO! I am just myself, I thrive in competition but I can also be sweet to a child, just like men can show different sides to themselves. I find this "feminization" argument ridiculous.
I think we are being raised to always follow orders from our paymasters. I will follow then only enough to continue to be paid. If they tell me to do something I find unacceptable I'll probably readjust my acceptable point because I cannot pay my bills without a job. I can be put in jail for not paying my bills. This is the Magistrate protecting Property before Freedom.
This is the main reason I am a rabid left wing socialist that really thinks that cradle to grave economic and health care support will result in greater freedom for more individuals. Under my idealized system, if I was faced with the choice of violating my principals or caving to my employer, without the threat of loosing my livelyhood, I would just walk away because I could not be coerced into staying.
Can it possibly be that mans technology and subsequent cultural and societal advances out paced his genetic predispositions.
Absolutely. I think from a societal perspective, we've been consistently moving toward a world where women are equally, or perhaps better equipped to achieve success.
Absolutely. I think from a societal perspective, we've been consistently moving toward a world where women are equally, or perhaps better equipped to achieve success.
Does that mean my chances of being a kept man keep increasing???
From the time young boys enter school, they are told "Don't play rough" "Don't play with (toy) guns" "Hey now your not being a good citizen" all said in a sickeningly sweet voice. Boys are taught that competition is evil. (Don't pick teams cuz someone might get their feelers hurt) And any time a little boy shows a little rambuctiousness (sp) they get put on riddalin (which is essentially medical grade meth) or some other drug to kill their personality. There are fundamental differences between boys and girls, since the feminist movement however, acknowledging these differences is some how seen as sexist. So everyone must play nice.
Assuming I ever have a son, I will encourage him to pull girls' hair and eat bugs, and I won't put him on drugs for doing it. Why? It is just a part of growing up.
This is the only post I've read so far on the thread. Justin, I have a son who is 8. He is tough as nails. He falls down and gets back up. He had stitches twice before he was 3 b/c he was into everything. He got hit in the lip with a t ball when he was 4. It bled a little and the coaches wife was freaking out. He wanted to hit and she was like are you going to let him play? I said is he crying? No, then he is fine. He broke his arm right above the wrist when he was 4 and said he was fine and went back to playing. We didn't realize how bad it was until the next morning when he woke up and couldn't move it! I tell anyone who asks that I will not raise a girly boy. He plays sports and he is competitive to a fault (like his father!). We encourage good sportsmanship and good citizenship but he and his friends play with guns. He got a BB gun for Christmas and my dad has been teaching him how to line up his sight and shoot cans. We have told him he can't play as rough with girls but he understands b/c he can't play as rough with me as he does with his dad.
He does have ADHD and is on medication. Please don't generalize as so many on CD do. We experimented with several medications to find the right one. His personality is the same. The medicine only helps him slow down and focus in class. We don't give it to him on the weekends anymore b/c he doesn't need it. I hope for your sake when you have kids, you don't have to eat your words. So many people who have no first hand experience with ADD/ADHD are so quick to blame the parents for helping their kids become the best they can. I want my son to succeed and not struggle b/c I am too D*** stubborn to get him the help he needs. I feel for those parents who refuse to try medication b/c they are only hurting their children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.