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.
Ah yes, the ubiquitous "alpha male." What is the actual definition of an "alpha?" Truly, last I checked the term applies mostly to a pack mentality social structure. There has been a trend for men to be more "in tune" with their feminine side among certain groups. As a whole, our society is advocating for non violent solutions even for problems that require violence to solve. Bullying being one such. The most effective method of dealing with a bully has always been to stomp a mud hole in them. Not using emojis, not talking to the bully, not ignoring them. But racooning them and knocking out a few teeth, and then said bully must walk among us with the marks of their shame.
The more modern and "enlightened" mindset disdains use of violent methods in such ways. This isn't "feminization" per se, so much as an intellectual methodology. A perception that we have moved past the need for violent methods. And it is just that. A perception. I call it an arrogant denial of who and what we are. Our more base instincts are still very much intact. And women are no less capable and willing to use violence as are men. In many ways, more so, as they tend to be more calculating in how violence is applied.
Women also have an uncanny knack for inflicting violent damage without use of actual physical force. Despite not having to resort to a pummeling physical attack, the damage done is often more judicious and lasting. Especially given the assets at a woman's disposal these days. The mightiest physical specimen of a man can be reduced to a bombed out she'll by a woman without her even breaking a sweat.
I often wonder if Tzun Tzu himself didn't use the female mind as his model for The Art of War, or if Miyamoto Mushashi
Didn't do the same with the Go Rin No Sho. We men may be more physically capable of smashing, brutish force however in actual application of force, I say advantage women. Simply put, they know better where to hit, and thus far less muscle is needed. How does that go? "Smarter, not harder?" Lol, At least that is how I see it.
And we men are also not allowed the use of the superior physical abilities we possess to resolve conflicts with women either. At least not without suffering severe consequences. From a strictly moral standpoint, we are expected to take whatever beating a woman may choose to give us, with our only defense being a higher tolerance for pain.
So, I submit that "feminization" is actually a more violent mindset than classic male smash and pummel. Albeit more cleverly concealed under the mantle of the "fairer" (though hardly weaker) gender. Ironically, men often take some pretty severe "beatings" willingly. Truly, the most grievous wounds that can be inflicted are not given via sticks and stones. I know that I have personally been wounded in ways that would have made a mauling by a bear preferable by comparison. By the same token, such wounds often "hurt so good" as well. Such is our lot in life as we "progress" beyond our classically violent tendencies.
On the bold - I agree.
This goes back to what I wrote above, in that women over the centuries have had to compensate for the fact that we are not as physically strong as men. We are forced to think of ways to have an advantage over men due to this, especially in certain situations.
Today, in America anyway, it is not acceptable for men to just "smash" their women into submission anymore and I do think that the conditioning that men endure from their childhood - that they shouldn't be emotional, makes them less capable of dealing with that part of their lives.
Your comment in that women want men to be in touch with their "feminine" side, IMO that word should be replaced with "emotional" side.
Men suffer a lot psychologically due to the fact that many don't know how to work through their emotions. In my own personal life, all the men/boys around me, the only emotion it seems acceptable for men to have was to be angry/upset about things. Crying/sadness (outside of certain situations) is/was shunned for boys. As a result, many men don't know how to deal with this emotion. Men/boys at least in my family were not expected to show any overt joy/happiness over certain occurrences.
Now that our society is changing, many women want to have their sons/boys learn how to deal with the emotional part of life and many men seem to lash back at this and call it "feminization" of men.
On the blue, I also especially agree with you. I think that society in general wants to be less violent and that has nothing to do with feminization IMO. As a girl, I was told by my mom to beat the sh*t out of anyone who bullied me or even spoke about me in a certain way. My dad taught me to box so I could beat up any boy who messed with me. Ironically, since I've had kids, it is my husband who tells me I'm "too violent" lol. He thinks people should try to talk things out and that that is a more mature, diplomatic way. I disagree and think that sometimes violence is necessary and especially do agree it is necessary when it comes to face to face bullying.
Why do people feel compelled to just make crap up and come here and post it?
This is all part of the self-victimization syndrome that runs through right-wing thought. It's a warped perception of reality created to conform to their sense of victimization. It starts out on a personal scale but expands to become all of society being victimized by evil-doers. It's always the same but the perpetrators will change -- a fill in the blanks outrage based on imagined insult or injury.
So basically, the conservative idea of what makes a man is someone riding 4-wheelers and smashing beer cans on their foreheads while simultaneously shooting bugs with shotguns. Otherwise, you are a dainty, effeminate flower.
I didn't say that, it was your interpretation of what I said. My point is that generalized aggressive male characteristics (which liberals call masculine toxicity) are intentionally portrayed in entertainment as something women should aspire to and be exhibiting.
If those little quips are all you got out of my post, it sounds more like you want to push an agenda rather than learn how others view the situation.
----
The OP clearly believes men are becoming more feminized, and I am pointing out (as a generalization)how women are becoming more masculine. Neither of us likes the change in that direction, and seriously wonder if the social engineering and culture wars are going to erode the fabric of American culture to the point of being unrecognizable in the future.
`
No, do tell. I am very, very interested in what random men think about the clothes I wear. I certainly don't want to let them down!
*Comparisons to nature - True, we are animals. Even so, our brains + other attributes enabling us to master fire, build stone spears, make baskets - and much, MUCH more, let us transcend the other animals to a considerable if not infinite degree. Most relevant here, we have greater capacity for moral and ethical philosophy than the animals (morality mediated by rigorous logic and reason). To keep appealing to nature (implicitly non-human animals) is an argument appropriate for a mountain lion or a timber wolf or baboon - not for a thinking, self-aware human with a modern education. In fact, your appeal to nature is frankly insulting, for you imply that humans have no more capacity for mental discipline and rigorous rational thought than do wild animals!
Our civilization always had contempt for nature. As a result, we have been diligently destroying it.
Other animals live in harmony with nature, they do not trash it like we do. And you progressive Democrats are just as guilty as anyone.
Other animals FEEL COMPASSION. Other animals OFTEN COOPERATE. Other animals have MORALITY.
A. The fact that men have historically participated in violent undertakings, like wars, does not mean they enjoyed the violence. Ask a veteran.
B. Don't you think that instinct has more to do with love of family than enjoyment of violence? Also, ever see a mom protecting her kids? Now that's some kind of fierce.
Young boys tend to like toy guns or machines. Young girls tend to like baby dolls or animals.
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS. But you must have noticed these tendencies.
I am sure there is some degree of enjoyment of war, although technology has made war horribly dangerous. It always was dangerous, but nothing like it is now.
Men are genetically programmed to enjoy, or at least be able to tolerate violence. Women can be violent also, especially to defend their babies, but they don't enjoy it or seek it out as much as men do.
Our civilization always had contempt for nature. As a result, we have been diligently destroying it.
Other animals live in harmony with nature, they do not trash it like we do. And you progressive Democrats are just as guilty as anyone.
Other animals FEEL COMPASSION. Other animals OFTEN COOPERATE. Other animals have MORALITY.
It's always about those evil, progressive democrats, isn't it? If only the regressive republicans could rule the entire world!
Here's a fact though in this highly entertaining thread. Animals do not have "morals". Morals are a human construct. Morals are based on principals of good and bad behavior. Animals don't think about what's "good" or what's "bad" in principal. If a bear is hungry he is not going to think about how destroying a camper's tent is bad behavior and how much that tent cost it's owner, his focus is on food and the tent is no more of an obstruction (principally speaking) than foliage. Making comparisons of humans vs animals makes no sense. I'm not sure what that has to do with "feminization".
And by the way---speaking of compassion---how much compassion did you show the bug? Just curious.
Young boys tend to like toy guns or machines. Young girls tend to like baby dolls or animals.
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS. But you must have noticed these tendencies.
I am sure there is some degree of enjoyment of war, although technology has made war horribly dangerous. It always was dangerous, but nothing like it is now.
Men are genetically programmed to enjoy, or at least be able to tolerate violence. Women can be violent also, especially to defend their babies, but they don't enjoy it or seek it out as much as men do.
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS.
I don't know. Have you ever given birth? It can be a messy, bloody ordeal that women opt for en masse. I think we tolerate violence pretty well.
Last edited by Cassy Fae; 08-09-2017 at 12:48 PM..
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.
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.
What is the actual definition of an "alpha?" Truly, last I checked the term applies mostly to a pack mentality social structure. There has been a trend for men to be more "in tune" with their feminine side among certain groups. As a whole, our society is advocating for non violent solutions even for problems that require violence to solve. Bullying being one such. The most effective method of dealing with a bully has always been to stomp a mud hole in them. Not using emojis, not talking to the bully, not ignoring them. But racooning them and knocking out a few teeth, and then said bully must walk among us with the marks of their shame. 
