The problem lies with us men!

Originally posted by noonebutme

Originally posted by kilas
By the way I'm sure women would take great offence if you think of them there only skill is " To Cry at films and have emotions". What?!?! Do you know any women? That might be more common place in women, but its got nothing to do with the essence of femininity or masculinity. Whats crying at films got to do with anything?

Most women should take offense at that, if that's what I had said.

At what point in my post did I say their [women] only skill is to cry at films and show emotions? I never said that.

I said that so long as the notion of men needing to learn from women *isn't* the cliché of expressing emotion and inner feelings, I'm all for it.

But please provide a list of the attributes, skills and qualities that men can (should?) learn from women.

I'm keen to know!
[edit on 3-12-2009 by noonebutme]

Here is one. That daily interaction with your children makes you a definer of culture. That there is power in being a teacher of children. One that men have culturally been out of touch with for a long time.

Originally posted by Alxandro
A lot of this certainly makes sense, but...

Could part of the blame be placed on the Mothers of the world for bringing up the bad boys described in this thread?

Remember, the world wasn't always like it is today, so the nuclear family shares the blame.
Sure hope nobody calls me a sexist for making this statement, but it's true.


[edit on 2-12-2009 by Alxandro]

[edit on 2-12-2009 by Alxandro]

Yes it was. Actually, it was often more brutal. The stupidity of brutality we are discussing now was an IMPROVEMENT.

reply to post by Samsan


You are right, same here in the UK. Competitve sports in some schools are seen as bad. Thats not a female male issue. That is just from the liberal left wing.

And (I can't speak for all countries) but we have a problem in the UK. Most schools are more female than male. Its not an issue of sex its an issue that is more sad. My friend works for Child Protection Unit. The shear number of men he is investigating for Paedophilia is huge, I mean SHOCKINGLY HUGE....strangley enough he not investigating any women at the moment. So reason at least here in the UK is that men have been scared off entering the education environment thanks to the shear number of Paedophilia incidents in the UK. Its become a bit of a social taboo for men now to work with children....thanks to other men in large.

Originally posted by Samsan

Originally posted by Freeborn
This is PC driven bollocks and nonsense.

Men and women are different, we have different drivers and priorities.
And that is as it should be, each as important as each other.
......
This has become blurred as society has become more complex.

"Complex" is a nice word for feminized, which is a euphimism for "pussified."

In schools across the USA, boys no longer play competitive games. Dodgeball, for example has been replaced with skipping rope and hop-scotch so that there are no "winners" or "loosers." Teachers are almost entirely female, and punish boys that display "agressive" activity.

And any suggestion that males should be taught by other males, in an all-male environment is met with cries from a feminized public that such a scenario would be ABSURD. WHY? Because.....then males wouldn't become "socialized in a democracy that includes a population of 50% females."

Women have created the problem, and refuse to help resolve it despite the clear historical evidence that allowing boys-to-be-boys is actually GOOD!

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Samsan]

Ah, the guy who uses a female body part as a derivise slur then acts like an authority.

Excellent.

Directed aggressivity is okay. You are pinning for the days when teachers and parents allowed all out horse # in the name of being "boys."

You put your money where your mouth is. People - men included - don't want to fund school activities that are not r-w-m. That means, no time for directed aggressivity. Not even time for recess.

Fund phys-ed. Fund lunch hour. Fund recess. Fund after-school activities.

Every one of those "feminist teachers" would be overjoyed. Estatic.

You and your fellows are taking it away. If you found it important, then your mostly male representatives, will be required to put efforts and money there.

It would be better for boys. It would be better for girls. It would be better for families. It would be better for society. It would make for healthier people. Less thuggery.

But nope. Represenatives of all levels, mostly men, refuse to put money there. Force schools to operate with only circullum test stats in mind.

Just because the teachers are more visible doesn't mean they are the ones making those decisions. Those decisions are being derived from direction and monies be assigned by government representatives. Who think that that sort of "Focus" on non-core subjects is not important and even hated, by YOU, the citizen tax payer.

You want those things. So do I. Fund them.

There's already enough feminization of the Western male as it is...forcing organizations, private or public, to have 50% females is a certain recipe for disaster.

One interesting story I'd heard some time ago was about U.S. soldiers that trained with live artillery. Basically the men follow behind an artillery barrage and as the barrage advanced, the men advanced.

Unfortunately there were quite often some duds that didn’t quite go as far as they were supposed to and men would get killed during training. I forget the female U.S. Senator that found out about this practice but she persuaded the DoD to stop it so men weren’t killed “needlessly.” The DoD complied.

A few years later, when soldiers marched off to war (Korea?) and they initiated the maneuver the soldiers had no experience with the technique and either went too far (getting blown up by their own artillery) or they stayed too far back which allowed the enemy to regroup and kill them as they came forward.

As I said, I’d ‘heard’ this story so take it with a grain of salt but it’s probably fairly accurate – but IMO that’s what you get when a woman (a non-military woman) meddles in the affairs of military men.

What exactly is a "feminized Western male?"

Some of the worst bad ass white guys of the last thousand years wore pink and dressed in tights and big freaking wigs.

Get over yourself as some example of "manliness."

Originally posted by msnevil
reply to post by Annee

 

Why the hostility to any suggestion about woman having roles?

I don't understand?

Or is it hostility to any "labels" that people seek to judge you with? Or is it some belief that some\all men seek to keep woman down by labeling them?

I never understood the whole "us vs them" attitude of some men\women. Isn't there some common ground to be compromised on?

Defining woman to a Role - - - creates an "us vs them".

Why do you see it as hostility? There is no hostility. If you are reading emotions into what you read on a blog - - - those are your own emotions.

I am who I am - - no one else is going to define me. My gender is physical - - it does not define who I am as a person.

Those are statements. Logical and direct statements. There is no emotion attached to them.

Originally posted by bowlbyville
There's already enough feminization of the Western male as it is...forcing organizations, private or public, to have 50% females is a certain recipe for disaster.

Oh let me guess.

You are a man.

Cricky there obviously are still a lot of people here who struggle with the concept of having more fair an equal representation in our power base. Which is kind of what the point of this was.

I don't think I dare extend this further any say something really drastic like: "I belive any power base in a country must totally reflect the cross section of its society. i.e. The decision making process should include views for people of Ethnic Back Grounds, All Religious back grounds as well as sex". Im sure when Toby Blaire was telling a few porkies about Iraq WMD's , if there was a Muslim, Christain, Jew, Bhudist, Athiest, Iranian, French man, a few women, an Indian, an Iraqi and more in that room then that decision may have been a lot different. INstead if memory serves me well there were about 50 white middle aged men with grey suits. All im saying here people, in order to maintain an effect decision making process you need to have a balance and fair team. I run a great team myself for my company. Even the cleaner....Oh how she loves to talk...came up with a cracking, I mean cracking idea. In most companies they only let the secret select few through the door of the meeting room.

To that person who said "What can us men learn from a woman?" well here are a few things that I have learned... more by observation around the office and with friends.

- Women are great communicators. I have found most women to be honest welcoming and friendly.
- Women tend to be much carmer and take a deep breath when the # hits the fan.
- Women tend to be much kinder, I know more women who invloved themselves in some sort of helping their fellow human than I do men.
- Most women tend to have that great nurturing instinct .
- I appreciate this may be difficult to judge, but through school, college, university and onto my working life, I have found women to be much much more honest. I know that some of you may not agree, but honesty is a good thing in my book.
- Women have a tendancy to care for their envornment (Home) than men.
- Women tend to be less threatening and ego led than men. Which is why one poster said that they make good managers. Which is true.

Just a few for starters.


Im not derailing us men here by the way we as a species (humans) are both great and crap in the same breath. I could list a few things that women could pick up from us at times. And men are not evil, I have a lot of respect for my fellow man. But the crime, sex abuse figures and so on tell me that men are prone to more disfunction at the moment than women are. Ergo......we / you have something to learn /need to change.

Has anyone read much about Africa and the Congo? You need to . I think the Congo is a very big subject, but the amount of NEGATIVE MALE persona in that conflict is astonishing.

Originally posted by Aeons


Here is one. That daily interaction with your children makes you a definer of culture. That there is power in being a teacher of children. One that men have culturally been out of touch with for a long time.

Yes, about as long as divorce courts have given women automatic custody unless their former partner is able to prove she is unfit. But of course, I'm sure in your mind the Fathers rights movement is all about misogyny. After all, men have no desire to be in their children's lives, right?

Originally posted by Annee

Defining woman to a Role - - - creates an "us vs them".

Why do you see it as hostility? There is no hostility. If you are reading emotions into what you read on a blog - - - those are your own emotions.

I am who I am - - no one else is going to define me. My gender is physical - - it does not define who I am as a person.

Those are statements. Logical and direct statements. There is no emotion attached to them.

The definition of "role" as creating a "us vs them" is a perception that is perceived into it. I do not see such a perception, to me its a word without meaning. A definition that doesn't need followed, and can be ignored.

You yourself make yourself, no one else can define you. Yet the perception of a Male "Role" for woman is something you appear to dislike. Why do you care what man label you by?

If you had no emotional attachment to this, you would not bother posting in this thread.

Originally posted by bowlbyville
There's already enough feminization of the Western male as it is...forcing organizations, private or public, to have 50% females is a certain recipe for disaster.
.

Why would it be a recipe for disaster, one would think that more then one opinion would be good for capitalism?

What's wrong with having quota's to level the playing field?

More diversity brings about competition, With more competition Capitalism thrives. Ideas flourish, and society is enriched.

Originally posted by msnevil

The definition of "role" as creating a "us vs them" is a perception that is perceived into it. I do not see such a perception, to me its a word without meaning. A definition that doesn't need followed, and can be ignored.

You yourself make yourself, no one else can define you. Yet the perception of a Male "Role" for woman is something you appear to dislike. Why do you care what man label you by?

If you had no emotional attachment to this, you would not bother posting in this thread.

I have been blogging for over 10 years. I started with ICQ. I'd be exhausted and spent by now - - if it was an emotional base I used to express my opinions - - rather then observation and logic.

-------------------------

1. If you had no emotional attachment to this, you would not bother posting in this thread.

Why do I need emotion to be interested in this thread? That's presumptuous. Ever occur to you that equality in responsibility touches many areas? Including economic - child raising - education - respect for intelligence - etc.

Often I sign up on blogs using a man's name. I am treated differently. Using a man's name I am treated with intelligent respect. If I say the same thing using a woman's name - - it is often dismissed. There is a double standard.

--------------------

2. Role. Anyway you look at it - it is defining.

I AM - - I am not a role - nor do I play a role.

--------------------

3. Yet the perception of a Male "Role" for woman is something you appear to dislike. Why do you care what man label you by?

Simple. This is a discussion board.

Would you like me to reverse that and say Male's should not be defined by being placed in a pre-programmed role.

Originally posted by Doglord

Originally posted by Aeons


Here is one. That daily interaction with your children makes you a definer of culture. That there is power in being a teacher of children. One that men have culturally been out of touch with for a long time.

Yes, about as long as divorce courts have given women automatic custody unless their former partner is able to prove she is unfit. But of course, I'm sure in your mind the Fathers rights movement is all about misogyny. After all, men have no desire to be in their children's lives, right?

You guys love this one.

Most of the time, men leave and do not want primary custody.

There have been multiple reviews done by the judiciary in most states. Every one of them found the same thing. That most women get primary custody. And most men never ask for it. AND that when men do ask for it, they get it MORE THAT 70% OF THE TIME.

In other words, when men actually try to they have MORE than an equal chance at primary custody.

Suck on that.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Doglord

Originally posted by Aeons
What Annee- the computer animated troll - is suggesting is that you can combine two eggs - two X, and never need a Y at all.

Incorrect.

Uh.... no it isn't. This method has already been shown to work.

You'd have a society of nothing but females.

Oh yeah - - I'm so dumb I only froze female eggs.

Duh!

Omg that was a good one! Lets not tell them the female body only produces x chromosomes eggs. To freeze an Y, it wouldnt be an egg, so it wouldnt come from any woman's body.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Unity_99]

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by bowlbyville
There's already enough feminization of the Western male as it is...forcing organizations, private or public, to have 50% females is a certain recipe for disaster.

Oh let me guess.

You are a man.

Duh. Personally we need to turn this whole thing around for a while. I suggest 100% females in charge for at least 50 years, and not just the efficient conservative well healed bloodline types either. Nah, rotating shifts, moms and grandmas too.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Doglord

Originally posted by Aeons


Here is one. That daily interaction with your children makes you a definer of culture. That there is power in being a teacher of children. One that men have culturally been out of touch with for a long time.

Yes, about as long as divorce courts have given women automatic custody unless their former partner is able to prove she is unfit. But of course, I'm sure in your mind the Fathers rights movement is all about misogyny. After all, men have no desire to be in their children's lives, right?

You guys love this one.

Most of the time, men leave and do not want primary custody.

There have been multiple reviews done by the judiciary in most states. Every one of them found the same thing. That most women get primary custody. And most men never ask for it. AND that when men do ask for it, they get it MORE THAT 70% OF THE TIME.

In other words, when men actually try to they have MORE than an equal chance at primary custody.

Suck on that.

Prove it.
Other wise, I'd tell you what to suck on, but wouldn't want such a poisonous mouth anywhere near it.

Oh, it even goes further than that. While you boys are playing wiht cars and guns and stuff, girls are not just conditioned by society, but actually hardwired into playing with and loving dolls. And then its get even more complicated, because they're bodies, produce children, in a very long drawn out, life altering and painful manner, and all of their hormones make them and the child bond in an incredible profound way, and then, if they're natural, they nurse the child up to 2 years, and do round the clock, childcare and feedings. I spent 10 solid years preggie and nursing, and all the diaper changes and night time wakings. And it was 10 times more work than my earlier carefree years of working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week in our farmer's market.

Well, guess what, I am not a surrogate womb for any man!!!!!! I have full custody of my children too.

I would never give a guy like you the chance at possible interpersonal engagement that could lead to reproduction by accident.

I am much more careful about the quality of the genes I have that sort of interest in. Weak men gross me out.



I could. But since you provide nothing but gender bashing with claims like prostitutes are controlling miners and soldiers with their wiles to destroy the world with the overwhelming power of their vaginas and mouths I don't think you're worth it.

Guys that aren't dipped in hate and dumb will recognize the truth of it. If one of them wants it they can U2U me. It'd take me a bit to track the link down again. But I have posted it before.

For you, I'll wait until your prove that somehow a group with no political, economic or military power could somehow oppress another group. I'll add in informational power, though it is really a more modern power concept a-la-Tessler. How somehow the power of the mighty promise of the ubiquitious vagina holds enough power to direct nations, without the people having them having any access to anything that power is derived from.

When I get that from you, then I'll give you what you could easily find yourself if you had half an interest.

[edit on 2009/12/3 by Aeons]

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by Doglord

Originally posted by Aeons
What Annee- the computer animated troll - is suggesting is that you can combine two eggs - two X, and never need a Y at all.

Incorrect.

Uh.... no it isn't. This method has already been shown to work.

You'd have a society of nothing but females.

Oh yeah - - I'm so dumb I only froze female eggs.

Duh!

Omg that was a good one! Lets not tell them the female body only produces x chromosomes eggs. To freeze an Y, it wouldnt be an egg, so it wouldnt come from any woman's body.

It should have referred to sperm - - eggs & sperm - - whatever.

Oh well - - I was in a hurry - - on my way out to meet someone for lunch.



[edit on 3-12-2009 by Annee]