Lack of feminine characteristics...

reply to post by StigShen

I have to agree with that sentiment. I'm a male with nothing but sisters. In fact, my family (at least the generations I've known) is substantially more matriarchal than patriarchal. The women in my family definitely will overrule the men in most affairs in day to day living. But at the end of the day a real man will strive to protect his brood, and that is something that history supports.

reply to post by soficrow

...Not just certain areas of the world. loam's thread outlines the breadth of the problems occurring, how they've reached crisis point, and have spread from male animals to male humans, and around the world.

I was actually saying good call, I don't know if you took it as sarcasm or not.

Well, it's obvious you have issues. If you read my postings and that's what you took from it. You were the only one to post anything along those lines so whoever hurt you, I'm sorry they did and I hope one day you can let go of the pain.


Until then, I will go about my life. As whatever it is you think I am, or whatever I am taken out of context.

Originally posted by Yeah-Alright
Are they fine with the fact that the females are becoming more aggressive, egotistical, money-minded and less 'traditional' in a way or there are those out there who still value those gentle qualities that in my personal opinion are very much valuable?!

Everyone likes themselves. People like being around people who are like them or have character traits that they admire.

Eastern culture seems to outwardly value self-sacrifice for the benefit of the greater community. Tradition would place a high-value on women who played into this role and men who also believe in being submissive to their greater community would probably value a wife who also shares his views.

On the other hand, western culture as a whole outwardly values individualistic aggressiveness, ego, and money-minded ambition. Cowboys like cowgirls. Lewd minded men don't want stiff religious virgins. Argumentative lawyer types who like to debate don't want timid or dumb and pretty wives. They like spitfires. Whether you like Hillary and Bill Clinton or Barack and Michelle or Bradd Pitt and Angelina Jolie.. they like their women just like themselves whether they be attractive, smart, nerdy, vain, or conniving.

Regardless of outward perception, no one person is one way all the time unless they are mentally ill. There is balance of character traits that do exist whether or not they are in public view.

There are many women and men who are aggressive, egotistical, and cut-throat with strangers, but show a different side amongst their closest family and friends.

Even when society promotes values that turn into tradition, individual humans will always have a large part of their identity that is not on display for the world to see.

It explains why the attractive cookie cutter wife finds her husband having an affair with a sometimes less attractive woman at work. Like minds attract, something about the way the other woman was aggressive and money-minded made him see part of his own reflection and it gave him a huge boner.. lol

reply to post by soficrow

Based on your litany of complaints and the above comment,

-complaint
+observation

As I said, you take me out of context. I don't care if a women cooks, I was speaking in general terms, I have always cooked in every relationship I've been in. I host dinner parties too. Did you want to take that out of context as well?

What I was trying to say is that it is not in vogue for a lot of women to cook these days. And before a lot of women prided themselves on it.

Observations.... Complaint would be, I get so mad because my damn girlfriend never cooks.

reply to post by MaryStillToe


GREAT post!

I don't know...why can't people simply realize that there is no such thing as 100% "feminine" or 100% "masculine"? Why can't we simply be "partners" instead, supporting our signifiicant other's shortcomings, while they in turn support our own?
It's so much simpler and more personally fulfilling that way. We become freed from cultural stereotypes, and can therefore realize our own individual persona, with no need to live up to some artificial yardstick of what "male" or "female" is supposed to be. Men are fully capable of tearing up and feeling emotion, and women can be strong enough to plan their own goals, whether they may be family or career-oriented.
Let's please give each other a break. Not one of us exists to fulfill another's fantasies of how idealized relationships "should be".

reply to post by soficrow

And I stand by my analysis that your personal dissatisfactions are rooted in your "looking for all the wrong things in all the wrong places."

Clearly I have not made enough information about myself available for you to make that judgement. I have not described myself or my dating habits or anything else personal in any detail. I made a simple observation on past girls that I had dated but nothing more. I haven't given you a history of my life or even commented on whether I am in happy or unhappy relationships, or whether I am currently single, dating or married. You have no background information whatsoever so you cannot make a judgement from that data.

So unless you are a psychic psychologist I don't know how you can make that bold assumption.

However, I can make a judgement by the fact that you cut and paste lines and claim that I am saying something that I wasn't saying. Either you work for Fox News or you have a major self esteem issue. Possibly a hatred towards men or how you think men look at women.

If you noticed, I "badmouthed" men as well as women (as it were -or as it be interpreted).

So I don't see what the fuss is all about.

Originally posted by Threadfall
reply to post by StigShen

 

I have to agree with that sentiment. I'm a male with nothing but sisters. In fact, my family (at least the generations I've known) is substantially more matriarchal than patriarchal. The women in my family definitely will overrule the men in most affairs in day to day living. But at the end of the day a real man will strive to protect his brood, and that is something that history supports.

If your family were to be attacked, say in a post apocalypse scenario, or even by a roving band of thugs, you would be their primary target initially, because you pose the greatest threat to them. For that reason, the women of your family would be wise to listen to your direction when it came to avoiding or handling such a confrontation. But in this day and age, all you will get is an argument.

Originally posted by QueSeraSera
We become freed from cultural stereotypes, and can therefore realize our own individual persona, with no need to live up to some artificial yardstick of what "male" or "female" is supposed to be.

You know what a man looks like and you know what a woman looks like. When a woman takes male hormones she looks like this.



That is a pretty big difference. But I guess the argument is, that you can chose you gender nowadays, so it gets really murky, and with boys dressing like girls and girls dressing like guys, and men taking women hormones and women taking me hormones, there is much to be said of the simplicity of traditional roles.

And another thought on the role of patriarchal family. I was just talking about foodstamps in another thread. If a family pay for their groceries at the supermarket with foodstamps, it will be the man who gets the nasty looks. It will be the man who gets the "why don't you get a job?"

Even when a woman has a child out of wedlock, maybe by a man in a one night stand, it falls on the man to provide financial support for that child, with NO say as to how those funds are actually applied. You don't hear questions about why the woman chose to have a child she could not afford, why she isn't working hard enough to support that child herself. It falls on the man, and by default, the woman gets to sit at home with the kid. Quite often too, the father could provide a far better environment for the child. Even in clear cases of neglect and abuse by the mother, the father will have a hell of a time actually getting custody. And if he does, fat chance the courts will award him support.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by QueSeraSera
We become freed from cultural stereotypes, and can therefore realize our own individual persona, with no need to live up to some artificial yardstick of what "male" or "female" is supposed to be.

You know what a man looks like and you know what a woman looks like. When a woman takes male hormones she looks like this.



That is a pretty big difference. But I guess the argument is, that you can chose you gender nowadays, so it gets really murky, and with boys dressing like girls and girls dressing like guys, and men taking women hormones and women taking me hormones, there is much to be said of the simplicity of traditional roles.

And you can freely choose not to respond. I'm not specifically advocating that "women" physically turn into "men" or vice versa, but why does some stranger's personal choices threaten you so? You are totally free to ignore any of own their personal choices which do not impinge upon your own lifestyle.
Live and let live... Who am I to judge, after all. Does any of us have that right? I think not.

reply to post by QueSeraSera


The problem is that it is not free choice when people are being conditioned this way. Brainwashed to think that certain things are perfectly normal, even preferable. It is one thing for a single mother to struggle and try to get by after a man has died or run off. But it certainly is not an ideal to uphold and advocate for. It is not okay for a woman to have four kids by four different men living on foodstamps and section 8 housing. For example.

Originally posted by StigShen
It is not okay for a woman to have four kids by four different men living on foodstamps and section 8 housing. For example.

Were are the fathers?

Again - - the woman is blamed.

Originally posted by QueSeraSera

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by QueSeraSera
We become freed from cultural stereotypes, and can therefore realize our own individual persona, with no need to live up to some artificial yardstick of what "male" or "female" is supposed to be.

You know what a man looks like and you know what a woman looks like. When a woman takes male hormones she looks like this.



That is a pretty big difference. But I guess the argument is, that you can chose you gender nowadays, so it gets really murky, and with boys dressing like girls and girls dressing like guys, and men taking women hormones and women taking me hormones, there is much to be said of the simplicity of traditional roles.

And you can freely choose not to respond. I'm not specifically advocating that "women" physically turn into "men" or vice versa, but why does some stranger's personal choices threaten you so? You are totally free to ignore any of own their personal choices which do not impinge upon your own lifestyle.
Live and let live... Who am I to judge, after all. Does any of us have that right? I think not.

No I didn't assume you were. I am also not threatened by anyone's personal choices. Jesus Christ, how come other people have opinions, we have to respect them but my opinion somehow implies I am threatened by someone else's?

The whole thread, from my understanding, is dealing with the with how separating from the traditional roles has affected society. We also debated whether it was good or bad in general for the Women's Lib movement to happen. We also talked about how the CIA was involved in creating the Women's Lib movement.

Now there are some more conspiracies out there regarding that but I won't get into it. I do not think people should be limited in choice, I also do not think women should be barred from the work place or any of that other nonsense.As far as being forced into the workforce (which happens social-economically now -I don't agree with)

My only position is I think society as a whole has been manipulated (socially engineered) to think it isn't okay to be feminine. As if it is weak or something. And some of the consequences of that are gender identity issues. I am not advocating women remain in the house to be housewives, but I am merely pointing out that society needs a new view on feminism and gender identity in general.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StigShen
It is not okay for a woman to have four kids by four different men living on foodstamps and section 8 housing. For example.

Were are the fathers?

Again - - the woman is blamed.

Didn't you say earlier there is no reason for marriage? so what does it matter if the father sticks around, no?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StigShen
It is not okay for a woman to have four kids by four different men living on foodstamps and section 8 housing. For example.

Were are the fathers?

Again - - the woman is blamed.

If the woman was not married, the fathers had made no promise to be there or to provide. Besides, more often than not, these women don't want the fathers around. Being a single mother has become an entrepreneurial activity. Yes, the woman is blamed, and rightly so. It is her choice. If women want equality, then they will have to take responsibility for their own choices.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StigShen
It is not okay for a woman to have four kids by four different men living on foodstamps and section 8 housing. For example.

Were are the fathers?

Again - - the woman is blamed.

I think this ties in to the whole accepting responsibility for being "equal" thing.

Now remember, I don't claim the sexes are equal. I do think women should be treated with respect however.

And in the past, if you knocked up a girl you had to get married. It was common social practice, probably the reason for high divorce rate amongst early boomers, or zoomers I guess they call themselves now.

As for today, women are liberated and men are complete retards like they have always been. So when they knock one up they just move on to another because that marriage stuff is stupid.

Originally posted by boncho
As for today, women are liberated and men are complete retards like they have always been. So when they knock one up they just move on to another because that marriage stuff is stupid.

Oh - believe me. Women being liberated has nothing to do with irresponsible men.

Forced marriage is wrong.

Why do laws not force paternal responsibility?

Originally posted by boncho

My only position is I think society as a whole has been manipulated (socially engineered) to think it isn't okay to be feminine. As if it is weak or something. And some of the consequences of that are gender identity issues. I am not advocating women remain in the house to be housewives, but I am merely pointing out that society needs a new view on feminism and gender identity in general.

Consider this. In other primate groups, like Bonobos and Chimps and Gorillas, there are males who dont get any at all, because the females prefer to mate with the cream of the crop.

The problem with that system is, that there is constant pressure on the males in the alpha position from the lower ranking males who want a chance at that privileged spot.

If there has been any social engineering going on, it has been to force a situation where women HAVE to marry, and the females are more even distributed. This means a lot of women end up with mates they would not have chosen, males who would never have mated in the past at all in many cases. It also means that the males at the top dont have to worry as much about pressure from below.

For a long time, even though the lower ranking males got a woman of their own, the higher ranking males reserved the right to sleep with the females at will. And it bears remembering that the family unit wasnt always the traditional "male head of household" looking after his own children. And there is evidence that this more female choice oriented strategy was still in play up to the time Christianity came into Europe in some cultures.

en.wikipedia.org...

The sexual freedom of women in Britain was noted by Cassius Dio:[69]

...a very witty remark is reported to have been made by the wife of Argentocoxus, a Caledonian, to Julia Augusta. When the empress was jesting with her, after the treaty, about the free intercourse of her sex with men in Britain, she replied: "We fulfill the demands of nature in a much better way than do you Roman women; for we consort openly with the best men, whereas you let yourselves be debauched in secret by the vilest." Such was the retort of the British woman.
—Cassius Dio

The problem with arguments like this one is that many of the males who are hot to preserve "traditional" roles arent really interested in history, or the truth about primates in general. But its out there. And the picture isnt one of a generic "feminine" role. It is one is which there is a good deal of variation, and in which monogamy is superficial at best. How can you argue what is natural for us, when most of you havent even taken the time to do any research as to what that might actually be.

"Leave it to Beaver" is not a historical documentary.

Originally posted by StigShen

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StigShen
It is not okay for a woman to have four kids by four different men living on foodstamps and section 8 housing. For example.

Were are the fathers?

Again - - the woman is blamed.

If the woman was not married, the fathers had made no promise to be there or to provide. Besides, more often than not, these women don't want the fathers around. Being a single mother has become an entrepreneurial activity. Yes, the woman is blamed, and rightly so. It is her choice. If women want equality, then they will have to take responsibility for their own choices.

Woah... I know a couple of dudes that would just love your version of paternal responsibility. How can you assume they do not want the father around? And, even if they didn't, the father has every opportunity to gain custody.