Feminization (ethical, statistics, radical, brainwashing)

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Back to NE

I'm still wondering what the silly OP wants from men that this "feminization" is preventing.

Is it:

-Simply a boyfriend? (my guess)
-More rapes and sexual harassment?
-More hunting and fishing for meals?
-More enlistment in the military?
-Fewer men working in offices?
-Fewer gay or bisexual men?

Isn't that certain women being just as shallow about non-dominant males, just as shallow as women accuse men of being when they reject certain women who are not of their body/face type?

Or am I missing something here?

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

Oh stop. "Revere the sanctity of life" that sounds so lofty. Too bad it's stupid.

Do other animals revere the sanctity of life? Not when they are hungry. And NEITHER DO WE. Unless you are a vegan -- but even then you kill those poor defenseless plants.

Life on earth REQUIRES killing.

On the other hand, every society on earth, human or animal, generally prohibits killing members of your own social group. With some exceptions of course.

All animals have violent instincts, for self-protection. Having violent instincts can mean ENJOYING violence.

If you have not noticed, little boys want to play with toy guns. You will deny it, of course, and say YOUR little boys play with Barbie dolls instead

Am I to take from this that it's immoral to have children? Every new child is an eventual murder by those standards, after all.

[tamajane]

[quote=Back to NE;49127855]I'm still wondering what the silly OP wants from men that this "feminization" is preventing.

Is it:

-Simply a boyfriend? (my guess)
-More rapes and sexual harassment?
-More hunting and fishing for meals?
-More enlistment in the military?
-Fewer men working in offices?
-Fewer gay or bisexual men?[/QUOTE

If it's wanting a masculine boyfriend what is wrong with that?

Rape/violence has nothing to do with masculinity, the only guy I ever dated who was abusive was the least masculine.

Fresh meat and fish is good.

Military service is good.

Men will always work in offices.

Gay and bi men are fine, they just need to keep it real.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Catgirl64

I though you were over Trump.

Also, really? Defending friends and standing up to bullies means one knows what it's like to be male? I've done things like that all my life, and I still have no idea.

Apparently AADAD, like so much of American culture, has a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between legitimate "manliness" and an outright conduct disorder. Sadly this is not surprising, as evidenced by so many people's definitions of leadership - which include the toxic celebrity CEOs of the 90s who made huge bucks for Wall Street speculators and especially themselves - at the expense of the well-being of their company and employees ("Chainsaw Al" Dunlap of Sunbeam, Ken Lay of Enron, Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom). I started a whole thread about this last year, which you can look up on my profile if you're interested.

On to the broader subject of "manliness". I find the whole popular notion of "manliness" meaningless - it contradicts itself on too many points for me to take seriously. If a man's supposed to be in control and dominate a situation, then Gandhi and the Dail Lama should be praised to the skies for being more of a "real man" than any videogenic "Alpha Males" who are pros at projecting the "right image". Yet, this is precisely what we rarely - if ever - find.

If a "real man" is someone with his own opinions, then what about the most sexually desirable 5% of males (presumably having considerable social clout, within their own buddy clique if nowhere else) who would be scared ****less to wear anything even moderately "sissy" or "emo" or whatever because they are afraid others will think them unmanly? Ditto for expressing non-conformist beliefs. How can that be anything but being afraid to go against the wishes of people with lower social pecking order rank? Again, this would not occur to many, if not most, people.

If a real man is someone who tries to make the world a better place, then why consider the stereotypical cocky d-bag (which you can find at pretty much any club, bar, or pub) more manly simply because he's great with picking up women and winning street fights -- rather than the 5"5' 120 pound (165 cm 54kg) guy who donates his free time to building houses for poor people (Habitat for Humanity) or likewise is a Big Brother to an underprivileged child? Yet another factor the popular definition of manliness fails to account for.

I have plenty more examples, but I think you get the picture.

Hence, I find the whole popular notion of "real man" based on superficial appeal at best and frankly nonsensical at worst.

[Catgirl64]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

Apparently AADAD, like so much of American culture, has a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between legitimate "manliness" and an outright conduct disorder. Sadly this is not surprising, as evidenced by so many people's definitions of leadership - which include the toxic celebrity CEOs of the 90s who made huge bucks for Wall Street speculators and especially themselves - at the expense of the well-being of their company and employees ("Chainsaw Al" Dunlap of Sunbeam, Ken Lay of Enron, Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom). I started a whole thread about this last year, which you can look up on my profile if you're interested.

On to the broader subject of "manliness". I find the whole popular notion of "manliness" meaningless - it contradicts itself on too many points for me to take seriously. If a man's supposed to be in control and dominate a situation, then Gandhi and the Dail Lama should be praised to the skies for being more of a "real man" than any videogenic "Alpha Males" who are pros at projecting the "right image". Yet, this is precisely what we rarely - if ever - find.

If a "real man" is someone with his own opinions, then what about the most sexually desirable 5% of males (presumably having considerable social clout, within their own buddy clique if nowhere else) who would be scared ****less to wear anything even moderately "sissy" or "emo" or whatever because they are afraid others will think them unmanly? Ditto for expressing non-conformist beliefs. How can that be anything but being afraid to go against the wishes of people with lower social pecking order rank? Again, this would not occur to many, if not most, people.

If a real man is someone who tries to make the world a better place, then why consider the stereotypical cocky d-bag (which you can find at pretty much any club, bar, or pub) more manly simply because he's great with picking up women and winning street fights -- rather than the 5"5' 120 pound (165 cm 54kg) guy who donates his free time to building houses for poor people (Habitat for Humanity) or likewise is a Big Brother to an underprivileged child? Yet another factor the popular definition of manliness fails to account for.

I have plenty more examples, but I think you get the picture.

Hence, I find the whole popular notion of "real man" based on superficial appeal at best and frankly nonsensical at worst.

I do, and I couldn't agree with you more. There's a lot more to courage than the ability to pick and win fights. There are a few on here who are fond of talking about "alpha males," and how desirable they are supposed to be. I wouldn't have one on a bet. But then, I'm sure those same few probably think that makes me something other than a "real" woman. Oh, well...

[Good4Nothin]

Violence is to be used for defense, or for hunting. That is true all through nature.

In many species, males compete for females. HOWEVER, they usually avoid causing serious injury or death.

In general, men enjoy violence. That does NOT mean they are cruel or lack compassion! Their instinct for violence is to PROTECT females and children.

I was NOT talking about psychopathic killers! I was talking about the NORMAL male instinct to PROTECT the social group.

[Good4Nothin]

And back to the Liberal who complained about me killing a bug. He was NOT being serious!

And I killed the bug because it looked like a mosquito to me, but I was not wearing glasses at the time. So it is POSSIBLE that I killed a harmless bug that was not trying to bite me! Am I going to feel guilty about it?

NO

[Catgirl64]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

And back to the Liberal who complained about me killing a bug. He was NOT being serious!

And I killed the bug because it looked like a mosquito to me, but I was not wearing glasses at the time. So it is POSSIBLE that I killed a harmless bug that was not trying to bite me! Am I going to feel guilty about it?

NO

If he wasn't being serious, why did you use him as an example of how "feminized" liberal men have become?

BTW, I don't give a rat's about the bug.

[tamajane]

Originally Posted by Catgirl64

I do, and I couldn't agree with you more. There's a lot more to courage than the ability to pick and win fights. There are a few on here who are fond of talking about "alpha males," and how desirable they are supposed to be. I wouldn't have one on a bet. But then, I'm sure those same few probably think that makes me something other than a "real" woman. Oh, well...

Do you know what an alpha male is? Maybe you have had one.

[Catgirl64]

Originally Posted by tamajane

Do you know what an alpha male is? Maybe you have had one.

Not the kind they're talking about. 100% sure.

[2mares]

Originally Posted by Good4Nothin

And back to the Liberal who complained about me killing a bug. He was NOT being serious!

And I killed the bug because it looked like a mosquito to me, but I was not wearing glasses at the time. So it is POSSIBLE that I killed a harmless bug that was not trying to bite me! Am I going to feel guilty about it?

NO

But you will anger the bug God.