It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Conspiracy against Manhood.

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in


posted on May, 22 2008 @ 03:43 PM
Ah...I think its not a conspiracy...I think its a trend. Its just nature making us evolve, one day in the future we will look back at this and laugh. men feel emasculated because of 21st century urbanization that superimposed office work, which is depressing for any man since it seems unproductive to society and bears little worth. what is a guy to do other than sit in his cubical all day doing useless corporate reports whatever no one reads them anyway. While women were pressed to take the role of men because lets face it office work isn't really tough physical stuff. this places women as independent from men making men not strive to succeed or achieve high positions. men's responsibility has been lifted in a way. also women don't really know what to do since this whole thing becomes perplexing; work or family? Men should just admit to themselves that human life has shifted to support a non-gender powered economy which places male as nothing special.

btw, I think if we gather all orangetom's posts we can turn it into a book.

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 04:43 PM

Do you recommend that women keep their biscuits in the oven and their buns in bed? What would you advise as a viable alternative?

For a productive, non-brainwashed society where we are not sheep of the elite, then yes, that is ideal.

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 05:38 PM
I think part of what is at work here is "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". Yes, we as humans should strive to eliminate the worst aspects of who we are. All too often we lose what is *good* about us in trying to do so. Somewhere along the way we (as people...I being of the female variety) were sold a bill of goods towards homogenization and neutrality. Sure, everything blends perfectly but there is NO flavor or identity. I don't know who to point the finger at but I think we need to realize that equal doesn't mean identical.

It's funny that as some men gravitate towards more "feminine" ways they (warning...gross generalization) tend to be less polite and kind. I would rather have scruffy and sweet than tidy and a jerk.

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:27 PM
reply to post by orangetom1999

Orangetom, I have to applaud the amount of thought you put into your theory and your posts. And, reading them, you are indeed making some very accurate assessments about a certain sort of female. I would also like to recommend to you that you at some point read "The Genealogy of Morality" by Nietzsche. You might enjoy his description of "slave morality." He shares some of your criticisms of women.

That said, I would like to point out that both you and Nietzsche are making a bit of a mistake. You are mistaking a culturally instilled set of behaviours for inherent ones. Some women learn to manipulate and blink their eyes to assert some sort of power, or to achieve their ends because they are taught from a very young age that that is the only acceptable way to do so.

I grew up in Hawaii. And in the sticks. And I promise you, the women in my home town did not feel the need to blink their eyes to get the grass cut. They were raised more equitably, and encouraged to be physical, and even fight if the situation required. They took risks. They took the amount of power their individual nature and physical build suited them for. Some big Samoan girls would knock the holy crap out of the average guy from the mainland. That isnt a statement made in jest. It is something I have personally witnessed.

The nice thing about that arrangement, that style of living, is that people (not "men" or "women") PEOPLE, become the thing they are by nature meant to be. Are some females more gentle? Absolutely. And are some "titas?" (pidgen for rough or tomboy) Absolutely. But men get to be what they are too.

If you have such a poor opinion of what women are, I say stop hanging around with piss poor examples of women. If a woman judged all men by the guys she found drinking in the gutter, she would assume all men were losers. But they arent. There are fantastic men and women when you stop hanging around with the worst examples. (Although ceasing to hang around with the worst examples does necessitate a sometimes uncomfortable change in your underlying assumptions.)

I live in the mainland now. And on my block there are only two women out of about 14 that act like you say. My female neighbors cut the grass, and get up on the roof to repair the stucco, start the swamp cooler, (or at least to help do so.) I have an 81 year old neighbor who is about 5'3" who gets out and cuts the grass and the hedges. She and her husband did everything, everything, as a team. He died last fall and she nursed him at home with the help of hospice til the very end.

If you are associating with women who only know manipulation and second hand power, and the underhanded methodology that one must employ to assert that bastardized second hand power, then you are missing out on the chance to have a woman like my neighbor as a partner atthe end of your life. And that is YOUR choice. It says nothing about women in general. I pity the women who grow up thinking they have to cater to anyone or any system in order that they be "allowed" to do certain things. In order that they might find some "security." Security that is loaned to you by another is never security. You are always at the mercy of your benefactor.

I was fortunate that I was raised by people who were strong and comfortable with themselves. Strong women, who did what they wanted or were suited for, and strong men who didnt need to put them down or limit them in order to feel powerful themselves. Just as security that is "loaned" to you by another is not real security, power that you gain by dominion over another is not real power. Power is something that is yours, and is inherent in you as a birthright, or it is nothing at all. A game. A masquerade. Power isnt gained by bullying or acting like a buffoon. Those are the actions of the powerless, someone who has something to prove. Who needs someone else to acknowledge their position to validate it. True power is exhibited by not needing anyone or anything, any structure, or cultural set of circumstances, to tell you who and what you are. The most powerful people are gracious, and accepting of others. They can afford to be.

posted on May, 23 2008 @ 02:16 AM
reply to post by mysterychicken

Mystery Chicken,

LOL LOL LOL...very intresting method you use in expressing your opinions and views. I agree with what you are saying. Well said.

I agree with your position that with Homogenization there is a loss of flavor. Very intresting method of expressing such a concept.

Also agree again in your concept that as men become more femminine they become less polite and kind..or what I call coarse. Well stated again.



So you are a local boy..not a howlie??? Great. My fathers people are from Kailua, Kona on the Big Island and I know exactly the women to whom you refer. As stated in some of my earlier posts ..these women too are not shrinking violets.

You are mistaking a culturally instilled set of behaviours for inherent ones.

I have some difficulty here with this concept ..though I understand it somewhat. My problem is that there is a difference in culturally instilled behaviors and inherent ones in a day of mass marketing...pavlovian stimulus...unthinking response to stimulus...bright lights and all that dreck???
Do we even have much inhereted anymore..or is it rapidly becoming mass produced...xeroxed if you like?

I see more and more xerox type behaviors...than I do those inherent.
Am I wrong here??


Some women learn to manipulate and blink their eyes to assert some sort of power, or to achieve their ends because they are taught from a very young age that that is the only acceptable way to do so.

I am not quite sure that this is the template. To me it is more like it is expedient (less RISK)and they can often work or get it both ways....and without thet method ever seen the light of day by others. It is stealthy...subtle if you like.

There are women on my street who do indeed cut thier grass...and a couple of them keep beautiful yards..alot of work and thought has gone into thier propertys and I salute them for this. No problem here with me. Personally I hate cutting grass and doing yardwork..and I have alot of machines to helpe me accomplish this task.

The type of woman for whom I catch alot of flack from both the men and women on this and other similar kinds of threads need to be identified for many out here. Unfortunately by the responses of the men out here..I dont think this will change any time soon. It is also much more common than most will admit.

I am trying to remember..about this person you reference...Neitzsche...???

It has been awhile since I read a bio of him..did he not die in a asylum??
If this is the person of whom I am has made me reluctant to read much of his material.

I am also thinking that one of his quotes is to the effect ...that when you stare into the darkness the darkness stares back at you.?? Or something to that effect. I thought it strange wording at the time.

Nonetheless..thanks for your storys of the Islands and its women. Yes I know about the Island women of whom you speak. They are my aunts and cousins. They are indeed a tough breed.


[edit on 23-5-2008 by orangetom1999]

posted on May, 23 2008 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by orangetom1999

Nietzsche did indeed die "crazy" although I think his family cared for him, however do not let that little fact dissuade you from reading that text. I feel quite confident that after hearing your hypothesis that you would enjoy and be enriched by reading it.

Many, many brilliant minds fall apart at some point in time. Among the most highly intelligent there is an unfortunate predisposition to depression or madness. I suppose when you are on the frontier of human understanding it is quite easy to make a misstep and become lost in the wilderness.

He is a bit hard on Christianity and Judaism, and if you are highly religious you may find that offensive, however if you could overlook that aspect as well he still has some incredibly insightful views on how individual or collective feelings of weakness (as you might phrase it, fear of risk or effort) affect ones behavior and feelings of "right or wrong" or morality. In my estimation Nietzsche's lumping of people into broad categories, (women, religious groups, etc) does limit his ability to communicate the message he is trying to convey, (which is a very valid one) but if the reader can look past his all too human failings in that regard, they can still gain quite bit from him.

And I am from Waianae.
Way out on the west shore of O'ahu. In response to your point about the xerox-ing that is going on, I dont disagree with you that that is the case. Our culture DOES make it more comfortable to "fit in" to the roles assigned to you by your gender, ethnicity, economic position, etc. There absolutely is an attempt to penalize individuals who refuse or are unable to mold themselves into this acceptable form. However, there is also a penalty for compliance. Though one may gain acceptance and approval from others, this is often offset by a deep underlying unhappiness that you might also note pervades many "civilized" cultures. Look how many people medicate themselves, with psychiatric drugs, pain killers, alcohol and illegal drugs, excessive spending, immersion in work, too much television, etc. simply to avoid having to face the parts of themselves that have had to be sacrificed or repressed in order that they conform. We are being pressured to become something other than what we are, but it isnt entirely effective. Who we really are, inherently, does not go away quietly, it has to be beaten down almost daily.

Thats why "pockets" of people (like in my hometown) who have NOT been completely tamed yet are so valuable as control subjects. Even in Hawaii, as you move from the rural areas such as my town, into the cities and more civilized portions such as Honolulu, you can see the difference between the people. We made fun of "townies" for their unnaturalness, their game playing and "stiff" persona's. Same people, same ethnicity, but some were well on their way to being housebroken, domesticated, and in my little town growing up people were still less affected. More natural.

So then the question becomes what to do about this? My answer would not be to accept the roles and the generalizations that culture imposes to make us easier to herd around. It would be to be true to yourself, and if you didnt know who yourself was, to find that out. Refuse to become a xerox copy. You dont have to actively rebel and act like a fool to do so. (in the scope of this discussion, "radical femininsts" would fit that description.) Those rebels arent really themselves either, they are acting in opposition to the expected role, which is a role as well. Define the role you play yourself, based on your natural likes and dislikes or abilities. Some wont like it, but so what? Do you want to associate often with people who cannot accept you? I dont. And if I do have to associate with people like that, I dont care if they are uncomfortable with my not playing to their expectations. They will get over it, and I am happy in the meantime. I dont go out of my way to be in their face, I have nothing to prove, but aside from courtesy, (which is legendary in Polynesia, it is a very gracious culture with very strong ideas about how to treat others hospitably and honorably as you likely know) I dont feel the need to change who I am to please them either.

And I do agree with you that some women may believe that blinking their eyes and acting weak may be more expedient. (or conversely sitting on the couch waiting for someone else to make dinner and getting pissed off that it isnt ready yet) But that to me demonstrates their conditioning. It is far, far easier to get up and cut the grass yourself than sit around blinking and simpering, or whining and complaining, in hopes that someone else will do it. It is unfortunate that some have been deceived into thinking the other way is "easier." In my relationships, the work has always been divided based on who hates what least. (Or who is better at what, I am not allowed to touch the laundry after several shrinking and discoloring things accidents) Not the traditional male/female divide. And if someone cant do their normal chores due to illness or other (work) related issues, the one with more time picks up the slack til the circumstances revert to normal. It just isnt a big deal. If both are sick or busy, things go undone. Life goes on, it will get done eventually.

I have enjoyed your posts. It is always nice to exchange ideas with a thoughtful person.

Edit to correct circumstances of Nietzsche's death.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 04:10 PM
I do agree with Shazam.

I wrote a thread about this once, and only a few replied back; but we cannot ignore what is happening right now. We are being taught that Men are not as smart, or as emotional, or as kind as Women. I am sure that you have heard all of these reports on some kind of news station or another.

These reports are false and fringe propaganda.

Why? Just look into the normal effects of human life.

First effect. When a revolution happens, the tables are usually totally reversed. The feminist revolution in the late 19th century and early 20th century started the turning of the tables. This is also when necessary changes were made to our constitution. I believe that Women should have the right to decide, just as Men do. It kept on going until feminism was at a
neutral. People usually agreed that women had a right to vote, decide, etc. But, the turning did not stop there, where it should have. It is only in human nature, as I said before, to reverse the table. And as Shazam stated before in his original posts, 1960 is when the fringe of the Sexist Feminism started to rear it's ugly head. Now, we know what this is like, and I can tell you, it will be the EXACT THING as Chauvinism used to be in the bible times.

Second Effect. Women have, and will probably always be easier to control then Men. Why? Because Women are not as stubborn as Men are. And on the other side, Men can tend to be too stubborn, to a point where they sometimes might not consider the true things to be truth. So it all works out in the end, everybody's equal. Just as they should be. But it does not stop there. The Illuminati want a total reverse of culture. They want this because when you have had your culture, and your way of thinking reversed, you are more succeptable to propaganda and other ideas that you would not normally accept.

So, if Women are easier to manipulate, control, then that is where the Illuminati want to strike/ have struck. They are starting to use them, tell them that they are the better sex. This is effecting men by having 50% of the population tell them that women are better. So, slowly, but surely, Men are being seen as unequal compared to Men, and Women will eventually be seen as more fit to have power. Then, when women do have power over the society, and more possibly the Government, the Illuminati will be able to make them accept more doctrines, eventually making the men believe.

It is all a plot to enslave all of humanity, for Men are stubborn.

If you actually want to see some of this is work, watch the anime movie, Princess Mononoke, a movie animated by a feminist Japan male, Hayao Miyazaki. I used to love this movie, but when I figured all of this out, I couldn't bear to watch the whole thing anymore.

posted on May, 25 2008 @ 12:54 AM

Originally posted by TechnoFan21

Second Effect. Women have, and will probably always be easier to control then Men. Why? Because Women are not as stubborn as Men are.

Have you met any women? Lol. I havent run across these non-stubborn easy to control women of which you speak.

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 02:57 PM
Sorry about that. What I meant to say is that Women tend to be more acceptive of things, more optimistic, than Men are. Therefore, more ready to believe false things and be more open to control.

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:33 PM
Is there no one to reply? Is there anyone ready to state their opinion? Surely one of you out there has something to contribute.
On the same token are there any opposers? Anyone?

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:10 AM

Originally posted by TechnoFan21
Sorry about that. What I meant to say is that Women tend to be more acceptive of things, more optimistic, than Men are. Therefore, more ready to believe false things and be more open to control.

Many Women can be very acceptive of things when they can get things without RISK. When a system is set up by others and they can just move in and assume a womans position...entitlement ..without RISK. It is very easy to be optimistic under these conditions. One can be very optimistic about things when socially in role playing ..the RISK can be assigned by sex....gender.

I want to qualify this statement by also saying that we are breeding a generation of males today who tend toward operating on the same fingerprint. They are optimistic because they believe that like many women they can get others to take the RISK for them. They are rapidly becoming competition for women and even women and children for goods and services. This is a high maintenance male..verses a high maintenance female...both are femminine.
I know a few of this type. I wonder about the women with whom they associate. I wonder if these women need a "project " to take on ...they have the "rescue " stray dog/lost puppy mentailty....and or how long till they catch on ..the women I mean??

Both of these types..male and female can be controlled by their emotions.

As to stubborn women ....I have no problem with this...they can be stubborn all they want as long at they pay the price for it and take the RISKS too. No safety net here.


posted on May, 29 2008 @ 07:24 AM
Men and women can be more accepting. I feel it is based on personality although perhaps women are more prone to be more accepting and go with the flow? Certainly I am not one of those women but I do see where some women, not all, can be like this. I live in a small town where opportunity and self confidence does not abound and women tend to let a man tell them who they are. This works for them. This does not work for me. To each their own.

I accept my truth, not what someone else tells me, for the most part. Where doctor's and dentist's are concerned, I will probably take their word for it! LOL Anyhow, I know men and women that let others rule them and I also know strong men and women that think on their own and let no one rule them. It is case by case, not sex by sex.


posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:32 AM
reply to post by princessjade

Men and women can be more accepting. I feel it is based on personality although perhaps women are more prone to be more accepting and go with the flow?


It is also, to me, based on personality though I find this accepting fingerprint more common among women. I tend to look for the woman who is not stamped out in this arena. Pretty rare anymore...males too. My observation is that in becoming more accepting....both sexes are under intense bombardment to this type of conformity. It will wax worse and worse..the more people spend time in front of the boob tube, movies and public education. I dont put much stock in Churchs anymore for relief here as so many of them have switched to the sugary doctrines and practices..and taken the Salt out of their services.


posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:40 PM
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed

Dude, we must have some kind of connection. I have been saying this for yrs now and every woman gets pissed at me for being too manly, too harsh, shut the f up already and let me be a man.

Look into breast cancer research, look at how much money is wasted on womans breast while men with prostate cancer die by the wayside. F breasts and all the damn walk-a-thons for womans breasts. What about man, woman do not have a prostate, only men do.

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by stinkhorn

Originally posted by stinkhorn
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed

Look into breast cancer research, look at how much money is wasted on womans breast while men with prostate cancer die by the wayside. F breasts and all the damn walk-a-thons for womans breasts. What about man, woman do not have a prostate, only men do.

As a breast cancer survivor, I find your remarks cruel and offensive. Breast cancer research is not about a woman breast. It is about saving lives. Just as testicular and prostate cancer research is about saving lives. All cancer research is about saving lives.

Women’s breasts have a purpose, to nourish the children she gives birth to. They are not just some decoration to entertain men. Due to hormonal changes through out a woman’s life, the breasts happen to be one of the places where women (and some men) get cancer. Cancer research is not about a particular body part. It is about learning the best course of treatment for a particular type of cancer.

Please do a little research before you make such outrageous remarks.

Breast cancer is a cancer that starts in the cells of the breast.[1] Worldwide, breast cancer is the second most common type of cancer after lung cancer (10.4% of all cancer incidence, both sexes counted)[2] and the fifth most common cause of cancer death.[3] Worldwide, breast cancer is by far the most common cancer amongst women, with an incidence rate more than twice that of colorectal cancer and cervical cancer and about three times that of lung cancer. However breast cancer mortality worldwide is just 25% greater than that of lung cancer in women.[2] In 2005, breast cancer caused 502,000 deaths worldwide (7% of cancer deaths; almost 1% of all deaths).[3] The number of cases worldwide has significantly increased since the 1970s, a phenomenon partly blamed on modern lifestyles in the Western world.[4][5]
The incidence of breast cancer varies greatly around the world, being lower in less-developed countries and greatest in the more-developed countries. In the twelve world regions, the annual age-standardised incidence rates per 100,000 women are as follows: in Eastern Asia, 18; South Central Asia, 22; sub-Saharan Africa, 22; South-Eastern Asia, 26; North Africa and Western Asia, 28; South and Central America, 42; Eastern Europe, 49; Southern Europe, 56; Northern Europe, 73; Oceania, 74; Western Europe, 78; and in North America, 90.[6]
Women in the United States have the highest incidence rates of breast cancer in the world; 141 among white women and 122 among African American women.[7][8] Among women in the US, breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second-most common cause of cancer death (after lung cancer).[8] Women in the US have a 1 in 8 (12.5%) lifetime chance of developing invasive breast cancer and a 1 in 35 (3%) chance of breast cancer causing their death.[8] In 2007, breast cancer was expected to cause 40,910 deaths in the US (7% of cancer deaths; almost 2% of all deaths).[9]

Prostate cancer is a disease in which cancer develops in the prostate, a gland in the male reproductive system. It occurs when cells of the prostate mutate and begin to multiply out of control. These cells may spread (metastasize) from the prostate to other parts of the body, especially the bones and lymph nodes. Prostate cancer may cause pain, difficulty in urinating, erectile dysfunction and other symptoms.
Rates of prostate cancer vary widely across the world. Although the rates vary widely between countries, it is least common in South and East Asia, more common in Europe, and most common in the United States.[1] According to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer is least common among Asian men and most common among black men, with figures for white men in-between.[2][3] However, these high rates may be affected by increasing rates of detection.[4]
Prostate cancer develops most frequently in men over fifty. This cancer can occur only in men, as the prostate is exclusively of the male reproductive tract. It is the most common type of cancer in men in the United States, where it is responsible for more male deaths than any other cancer, except lung cancer. In the UK it is also the second most common cause of cancer death after lung cancer. Around 35,000 men in the UK are diagnosed per year; where around 10,000 die of it. However, many men who develop prostate cancer never have symptoms, undergo no therapy, and eventually die of other causes. That is because malignant neoplasms of the prostate are, in most cases, slow-growing, and because most of those affected are over 60. Hence they often die of causes unrelated to the prostate cancer, such as heart/circulatory disease, pneumonia, other unconnected cancers or old age. Many factors, including genetics and diet, have been implicated in the development of prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer is most often discovered by physical examination or by screening blood tests, such as the PSA (prostate specific antigen) test. There is some current concern about the accuracy of the PSA test and its usefulness. Suspected prostate cancer is typically confirmed by removing a piece of the prostate (biopsy) and examining it under a microscope. Further tests, such as X-rays and bone scans, may be performed to determine whether prostate cancer has spread.
Prostate cancer can be treated with surgery, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, occasionally chemotherapy, proton therapy, cryosurgery, or some combination of these. The age and underlying health of the man as well as the extent of spread, appearance under the microscope, and response of the cancer to initial treatment are important in determining the outcome of the disease. Since prostate cancer is predominantly a disease of older men, many will die of other causes before a slowly advancing prostate cancer can spread or cause symptoms. This makes treatment selection difficult.[5] The decision whether or not to treat localized prostate cancer (a tumor that is contained within the prostate) with curative intent is a patient trade-off between the expected beneficial and harmful effects in terms of patient survival and quality of life.

I vote we continue in all cancer research!

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by stinkhorn

Did you know that when new drugs are in the human testing phase that it is mainly men who are tested? Wanna know why? Since women have menstrual cycles and men don't, that's just one less "variable" to have to adjust for. All the doses for drugs are based on what would work on a 150# man. Do you know how many women have been screwed up by that dosing system? And by NOT accounting for the hormonal differences between the sexes?
Everyone knows the warning signs of a heart attack: crushing chest pain that may or may not radiate down the arm, into the jaw, back or shoulder, nausea, vomiting, diaphoresis (sweating), shortness of breath, etc. Those are the warning signs for MALES. Warning signs of heart attack in females is usually fatigue. That's it. Since all the women I know are chronically overworked and fatigued all the time anyway, how in the hell are we supposed to differentiate? We're not because only the information for males is presented, not for women. Most women think they're just tired because no one ever told them that they probably won't have all the male signs of a heart attack and so they don't seek help. They take a nap and die in their sleep.
Talk about a conspiracy! Apparently it's not important to try to save women's lives; just mens. "F breasts"? I have a few choice sentiments to reply to that callous remark but they would all get me banned.

It is becoming increasingly evident to me that there are a lot of whiney, cry-baby (so-called) men that sound a lot like Cartman on South Park: Respect mah authori tie. Be someone worthy of respect and you will be respected. Piss and moan that "life's not fair, waaa for me" and you'll still get all you DESERVE.

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:43 PM
I tried to watch an episode of South Park. It didnt take me long to reach for the remote. I found South Park not to be worth my television time..except to use the remote to get away from that nonsense.

It was the same with watching many sitcoms. Also this program called Sex In The City. Awful!! I have no idea what is on the new line up for television programming and brainwashing. I believe I am better off not watching them. I have found most of them to be very poor fodder as a template for measuring life out here. However ..if one is into entitlement mentality and self promotion ..there is a whole host or plethora of programming one would find helpful and suitable for this purpose.

Reading some of the posts on ATS/BTS my members makes me realize how out of date I am regarding television programming. But somehow I dont think it is anything over which to loose sleep.
I tried to watch some television this weekend...and gave up...thank the Lord for a remote controller.


posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 09:00 PM
firstly, sorry i have to admit i couldnt read through the whole thread. i am off to work soon. i apologise if i repeat anything. but i just want to bump the thread by adding my own irreverent and irrelevent comments.

i agree wholeheartedly with the OP. men are becoming emasculated, feminised, disempowered and reliant.

look at the emo culture for instance. all these teenage boys seek that black stovepipe jeans ass-less muscle-less lower body look. anyone else noticed that? now i see skater kids, musicians and general fashion trends picking up on this. there's a whole generation of boys chasing a "look" that is effeminite. no one wants to look like a weather-beaten farmer anymore...

its as though it is now fashionable to look like a malnourised iron-deficient over-moisturised boy-man. i should know, i am one lol (no emo)

[edit on 9-6-2008 by sollie]

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I can see your point. As a woman, I am attracted to manly men, with manly traits, like hair and muscles and knowing how to do man things. I have given up on dating already, there are just not a lot of real men to pick from any more. I myself am raising two future men, so I want them to have strong manly traits when they grow up, not be sissies.

Boy I wish my wife was as understanding as you. She doesn't like the idea that if we ever do decide to have children, that I am going to get them involved in martial arts and teach them combat so that they know how to defend themselves if ever the need comes when they have to fight. I'm the same, I don't want my children to be sissies either. I used to be bullied a lot when I was a kid, until I started standing up for mayself. So I know what kind of mental job that does on a kid (bullying, humilliation etc.). So of course I want my kids to be able to protect themselves. Even if I end up with daughters, I still want them to learn how to defend themselves so that, that way I won't have to worry about them when they go out on dates. I'll know that if they try to get too fresh with them, they'll kick their date's ass so badly he'll be too embarrassed to show himself at our door step he he he Or I could also try to intimidate him by showing him my full collection of martial arts weapons

Interesting story. I grew up in a south american country where, yes, you could get in trouble for fighting, but that was how we (boys, and sometimes even the girls) settled rivalries. If you were man enough you'd fight. Only the cowards would hide or go to an authority figure. I know this "primal" concept might be a little too hard for some here to grasp but until you've been surrounded with people that are raised to be proud of themselves to the extent that I and others were, you wouldn't be able to understand this. Then again, most people no longer understand the real concept of what pride, honor, dignity etc. is, not in the states anyway.

Edit to add: yes, I was raised incredibly "old school" I was raised how my american grandparents were raised during the 20's-40's mixed in with how south american children were raised, and I plan on raising my kids with these "old school" principles as well.

There was a time that I was being bullied A LOT and I didn't do much because I tried to portray myself as a "pacifist" (what a crock!) until I had enough started trying to stand up for myself. Unfortunately I only won a couple of bloody noses. My mom came in one night and started giving me a speech on how fighting was bad etc etc. But I'll never forget what she said afterwards "I love you and that's why I'm worried about you getting into fights. But if you have to fight, for god's sake you better WIN!" I couldn't believe it at first. I understood what she was saying. Yes, fighting is bad, but don't let yourself be taken advantage either. If you have to, do it for the right reasons and win. Ever since then, I took a deeper interest in combat both boxing and martial arts. Yes I know to use my skills ONLY for self defense.

I got in trouble at school here in the states for trying to stop a bully (here in the states, not in south america) but the funny thing is, my councilor coming from brazil also said the same thing. That she understood why I did it because that's how school kids settled things, like men, not like cowards going to an "authority" figure. I did get in trouble here in the states for it, but at least the bullying stopped afterwards. So for a 2 day suspension, it was well worth it. He kept quiet from then on and even apologize for his actions.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Question]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Question]

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by Question

I have not checked this thread in a few days but wanted to let you know that I agree with the premise of your post and also of Hotbakedtater you quote.
I dont see alot of manly men out here either. I see alot of second hand men or what passes for men.

I too am not into fighting and am somewhat of a Pacifist...with certain reservations. I never went around looking for fights and tried mostly to avoid them. Still do. I dont consider fighting worth much of my time. Never did. I would rather spend my time and efforts with something more constructive than fighting.

I too have a martial arts background..but go around alot today with my good friend Sam Colt. Not looking for trouble..but there is getting to be more and more wildlife around this city than in years past. definitely want your children to be able to stand up for themselves..not just in fighting skills but daily in thier occupations with honesty and integrity. This too is fighting ..our daily labors...fighting to remain on the straight and narrow so to speak. By this I also mean ..male and female.

Thanks for your post,

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in