Why men are in trouble

reply to post by orangetom1999

I am not totally sure that I have understood all your points, though I would like to. So I’ll kind of bounce back to you what I grasped and you can correct me where it is necessary, and disregard my responses to that which I have misunderstood.

I do not get your association with instant gratification and the emergence of more women in the roles more traditionally male oriented. The most I can see in that is that in the more public and traditionally male occupations one gets higher pay and recognition of value and respect quicker..... whereas being a successful mother, for example, gets no direct pay check which validates their work, and no acknowledgment for their success until the child has become an adult. Sometimes that chain of effect is never acknowledged at all by the outside world.
The job of raising and educating a child gives only long term compensation and mostly only through personal validation (with ones own conscience, rather than public recognition from the system).

But this is the nature of those jobs...... and perhaps you could say that some women may have wanted to share in that immediate gratification and validation that men were already enjoying. So if immediate gratification is wrong, why was it okay when men were the majority going after it and getting it ?

I also do not see the previous feminist movement as only offering women more options, at least not as it was practiced. The headlines proclaimed more options (just as the current movement claims to offer men) but my mother repeated one lesson to me over and over – « Whatever you do, do NOT become a housewife ! » You MUST have a career outside the home, and anything else is a total failure. I did not get any education that offered me the option of a traditionally female occupation.

Boys today may be getting a similar message - you MUST practice housework and childrearing, and failure to do so is unacceptable. This is the same sort of pressure we girls got in the 70’s, just the other way around.

And on risks, again, I do not see this lack of risk you are describing. Perhaps it is because I am not exposed to these types of women, not being one myself. Even now, my girlfriends in the US are mostly in the midwest (our horse passion being the link) and are hunters, raising cattle, growing their own food, repairing their own barns and fences, running businesses in their rural towns. –And taking their mothering job very seriously. For them being maternal is NOT about doing things for another- it is the process of making an independant individual out of a dependant child.

-This point is one I have noticed is rather specifically twisted in intellectual and urban americans- that being « maternal » is nurturing and serving appetites and needs. That, I believe is an idea that was pushed forward to discredit the job. Being maternal is being tough and having a mind which foresees future effects and works toward them in progressive steps, with organization, creativity and reason. NOT being a selfless giver creating a dependant individual.

One of the biggest risks is love- ask most men afraid of trusting and opening to another. I don’t buy at all the claim that love and risk are separate and risk of so much MORE value. That is the excuse of men afraid of the emotional risk love entails. Love is risk, but it is a different kind of risk. Men feel much more comfortable with physical risks because they have more physical strength, women feel more comfortable with emotional risk because they have more emotional strength.

But really, facing risks is stepping into the arena that isn’t your natural forté, and where you don’t have the odds in your favor.

« In short what males learn is that they are expendable and disposable commodities to this paradigm. »

That is simply them experiencing what it is like to be on the « other side ». The traditional female roles (I am refering to the roles which are most often carried out by women all over the globe in most countries) are OUTSIDE « the system ». They create and construct within the interior, within the home and family, within the smaller community, and you are your own boss. You do not get pay, validation, or acknowledgement for your successes from the system outside.
You evaluate your progress and adjust, you compare and study the choices and results of your collegues to help you plan your own, you discipline and guide yourself.

You pat yourself on the back, your partner may appreciate the work you do for him, for his children, your kids may appreciate many years down the road, you have your neighbor appreciate what you did for them.
But for the official society, you get no awards, no pay check, no guidance or control. You are officially expendable and disposable.

Unofficially, by those closest to you who know you, you may be valuable beyond any other outside influence, and an intimate, deeper value exists. You must give up your attachment to the superficial, immediate gratification, dependance on exterior validation and guidance.

This is what it is like on the other side guys ! It always has been !
When you’re on this side of the fence,. You are your own boss- for real this time. You judge your performance on how your kids turn out, on whether your husband and kids are independant, dynamic, healthy and constructive.... or whether they are dependant, lazy, obese and destructive. THEY are the products of your work.

Just as you say women may not be (in the environment you are in) appreciating the systems and products of traditional mens roles, many men also do not appreciate the the products of the traditional womens work- that is- people.

A second thought came to me-

I am finding myself thinking that with all the pressure that apparently exists for men to develop their "feminine side" and take up more traditional feminine roles, perhaps they need some guidance or aid in that?

The idea that being "maternal" is only about selfless giving and creation of dependance is a total crock of crap.
Doing that causes a person to become depressed, void of self respect and with low self image, and needing quick and easy forms of distraction and fulfilment like a person with low blood sugar craves sweets.

Being maternal is like being a trainer- your own self discipline must be developed, in order to have your creations (the people, the children in your charge) reflect that same discipline eventually.

I can't help but use for metaphor the discipline I am familiar with- animal training- because it reflects similar principles. When you train an animal to be a constructive being that works with humans, independance is the goal.
When you train a dog to gather sheep, or when you train a horse to work cattle, that is the goal. I'm into "cutting", in which you train a horse to know how to cut out a cow or calf from a herd and separate it. A cutting horse knows how to see what needs to be done, with whom and how- and does it all alone. In a cutting competition, you are not allowed to direct or guide your horse. The product of your years of work with that horse is a horse that analyzes, comprehends and acts, all alone.

That is what childrearing is all about. And yes, you begin by guiding them and showing them, and then you progressively set up situations in which you ask them to respond themself, and the tasks gain in complexity.
It is long hard work that takes analyzation, reason, comprehension and empathy of your student (in order to adjust the lessons accordingly) and long term vision of goals.

It means demanding results and service in return for your guidance, protection, and the survival essentials you provide. It is far from being selfless givers, it is far from just feeding their base desires and appetites, and way, way, far from keeping them dependant!

Even in housekeeping, the job does not entail doing everything for everyone else- it is a job of management and engineering. Delegating and organizing- not being a servant.

The men that are falling into the traps of immediate gratification and comfort may only be doing so because they have been going about their attempts to do maternalization all wrong. They may have a faulty understanding of what is the goal in doing things like housekeeping and childrearing, in social bonding. This is just the beginning of the process, they may make progress and learn to get up on those horses and "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" as the process continues. I wouldn't panic and run out so fast on the whole experience. Just keep working on it.

reply to post by Bluesma


Your a sexist bigot. Why not look into the war on boy's and how the AAUW intentionally lied in the early 90's about the "girl crisis" that caused a very real boy crisis when congress spent hundreds of millions in retooling the educational system to be pro girl and anti boy. Heck look at all the BS hate rhetoric of the last two decades: "Boy's are stupid throw rocks at them".

The women's rights movement is a BS sham. Women never fought for equality, they fought for supremacy and the right to enslave males.

I suggest you google the MGTOW movement. Then again bigots like you are immune to the truth, anything that would disrupt your sociopathic world view you shrug off.

P.S you psycho: Males have always been the disposable gender. It isn't because males are taking on more "feminine gender roles", it is the nature of the oppressive western Nordic Caucasian Matriarchy. Look at all the young men who died on the Titanic, drafted to fight in the first world war.

Women don't know the meaning of oppression. How many women died in the coal mines? The west is coming to an abrupt end soon as no young men of worth are willing to defend it anymore.

MGTOW 4 Life!

P.S
Feminism is nothing but a Female Supremacist hate movement. If it isn't a hate movement name 1 feminist study that has been peer reviewed and hasn't been found to be an outright lie, distortion or in general debunked.

The traditionalist noose is tightening, granted traditionalist's are just as big man-haters as feminist's, but it will be amusing to see what is going to happen next as traditionalist's begin to accelerate their pogrom in fear of a male revolt in the face the outright female supremacist undertones of our society.

And to make things even more amusing, every day that goes by older white knights die off and mangina's like you get converted to the cause. Soon, very soon, men will be able to finally break the millennium old chains of the Nordic Caucasian Matriarchy.

P.S

White women were responsible for "White supremacy type racism". Google it. Google how White women were jealous that White men where willing to marry any woman regardless of race. White women wouldn't have that and especially White British women pushed for laws outlawing marriage between races and the persecution of minorities. Look up how British women gathered up lesser British women to be sent to the colonies to prevent British men from marrying local non British women(and backed up their desire with stiff law's).

Today such ignorance manifest's as women get upset when men marry foreign wives(Look up Tyra banks show how she and her viewer base get upset that "their men" are marrying foreign women).

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by Bluesma

 

Your a sexist bigot.

I am not. Get your head out of your ass.
I am not a supporter of the feminist movement, and I think you are being irrational.
I felt the feminist movement did nothing to support femininity, I think it had the opposite effect- pushing forward an agenda of making women valuable only if they could be like men and compete with men in masculine pursuits- in other words, being women and having feminine strengths is worthless. (hence the de-valuation of maternalization into "selfless service to the base appetites" which it has never been and never will be).

I think the current (opposite) movement is similar in action and false concepts.

My point was that bull# is always being offered by the "system" and it's agenda, in one way or another- the wind changes direction from time to time, but always makes walking your own individual path more difficult.

But you can use those winds to your advantage if you choose to just learn a bit from them while they blow one way or the other, like a sailor- the media is on a rampage to make women act like men? Well then go ahead, women and learn what it is like for men! That will be useful in comprehending your male partners, friends and family!

Your current media is pushing for men to act like women? Well then go ahead men and learn what it is like for women! It will aid you later in comprehending your female partners, friends, and family!

You are not under anyone elses power, and nothing the media pushes forward needs to be seen as a such a big threat- keep your head on, manouver in whatever direction you want, taking into account the current trends, but not being completely manipulated by them.

I have made no claim, in any of my posts, of women being victims. I HAVE made the claim that there is an interesting facet to many traditional female roles which does not include having officially acknowledged praise or statute from the system- and it has a more meaningful, deeper, and personal type of reward instead. That is not being a victim- that is simply experiencing a different kind of value.

I don't see the relevance in the pairing of men with foriegn women- my husband is of a different nationality than I, and I came to his country to live. White men act just as objectionable in some circles, of white women pairing with men of others colors or nationalities! This is very evident in the efforts made in the US early on, as well as places like India, where colonization of whites made evident a very lopsided value system- in which it was more acceptable socially for a white man to bed or marry a darker female, but it was unacceptable for a white woman to bed or marry or a darker man!
Such stupid predjudices always exist somewhere! So what? Is that an excuse for you too, to act hateful and pit one (sex or race) against the other too??
There is only a war of the sexes for you if you choose to have it.

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by Bluesma

 

P.S you psycho: Males have always been the disposable gender. It isn't because males are taking on more "feminine gender roles", it is the nature of the oppressive western Nordic Caucasian Matriarchy. Look at all the young men who died on the Titanic, drafted to fight in the first world war.

Women don't know the meaning of oppression. How many women died in the coal mines? The west is coming to an abrupt end soon as no young men of worth are willing to defend it anymore.

Name calling.... how old are you anyway?

I guess you can CHOOSE to look at the physical risk taking you describe as proof that men are/were considered invaluable or disposable. Or you could choose to look at it as orangetom here does- as proof that men are more apt and couragious at facing physical risks than women.
I haven't found evidence of the limitation upon females for fighting or performing physically difficult tasks as being one women put in place. It has more often been MEN who made the choices to eliminate women as potential soldiers or manual workers such as mining.

I am not completely ignorant of the basic facts of the biological differences in males and females, and that men will have more stamina and strength then women, and so this discrepency may be justified no matter WHO pushed forward that.

My point before was that soldiers get medals, and memorials in their name, even post mortem, for their risks.
Mothers who die in childbirth, or in the rice field, trying to feed and support her family, do not.

That does not mean they are oppressed. It means their roles were gaining different sorts of rewards- the men working towards public acknowledgement, the woman towards personal acknowledgement. And these two types of reward are ultimately equal but different.

Women are complete idiots. They are not smarter than men, society is just propping them up because the Feminists have a lot of power.

Originally posted by sliceNodice
Women are complete idiots. They are not smarter than men, society is just propping them up because the Feminists have a lot of power.

There are just as many idiotic men as there are idiotic women.
That's no excuse to lean back on being one yourself.
Society hasn't propped women up as being less idiotic than men, in my opinion, it has only pushed forward as desireable many traditionally female dominated roles lately, just as it once pushed forward many traditionally masculine dominated roles in the past.
The media places focus on one or the other alternatively, but that doesn't mean either is ultimately more important than the other. Think for yourself and don't let yourself be swayed by it's changes in focus.

reply to post by Bluesma


Bluesma,

What you describe here happens to males as well..not just to females.

The most I can see in that is that in the more public and traditionally male occupations one gets higher pay and recognition of value and respect quicker..... whereas being a successful mother, for example, gets no direct pay check which validates their work, and no acknowledgment for their success until the child has become an adult. Sometimes that chain of effect is never acknowledged at all by the outside world.

While this may happen to men it is not the end result that it it cracked up to be. Women are deceiving themselves here and especially the womens movements. A mans risk taking in these arenas which gaurantee him success in the workplace does not gaurantee him success on the home front. OFten it is exactly the opposite..he is isolated from emotions on the homefront. This is seldom defined by women or even the men themselves. The things which make him successful..the disciplines at work often make him unsuccessful in love and affection at home.
He often finds himself coming in second, third or further place down the pecking order at home..even behind the dog while everyone and everything else gets priority. But he gets second third or further down the line place but must bring home first fruits.

Hardly ever is this recognized by the very ones in whom he has invested so much .

I believe that women who discover this pattern for themselves when taking on what they claim are "Male " roles..this is one of the sources or reasons of why they find themselves unhappy with it.

When it happens to women there is a whole social network and media et al..to make sure it gets posted and published..but for males there is no such social outlet or network. The males are invisible in their concerns in this arena. It is a big deal when it happens to the female..but the male is unseen and unrecognized in this arena. Not rewarded..not recognized. But if he slacks up on the "Good Providing" it wont take long for him to be recognized by one means or another.

Women dont necessarily want a "sensitive man" they want a man who is sensitive to them..and also the children.

The job of raising and educating a child gives only long term compensation and mostly only through personal validation (with ones own conscience, rather than public recognition from the system).

This is not just an viewpoint of women..but of men too. But the mens role is hardly ever seen or known.

But this is the nature of those jobs...... and perhaps you could say that some women may have wanted to share in that immediate gratification and validation that men were already enjoying. So if immediate gratification is wrong, why was it okay when men were the majority going after it and getting it ?

Once again Bluesma..when many women find out the cost to themselves of these jobs that they think is so glorious to men..they often try to find jobs which suit their personalities..ie ...options. Female social beliefs and thinking..ie..options. This can be done by and for themselves..or through getting up with a man who will provide enough security that she can sellect a job which is preferable to her social view..ie..options. Preferably before the biology runs out and it strikes midnight Cinderella. In short she can go where the status is ..not where the money is as do alot of men or males.

I also do not see the previous feminist movement as only offering women more options, at least not as it was practiced.

Agree with you here Bluesma. The movement offered many women false promises..even women who went to college. It may have gotten them better jobs..better pay but not happiness. Particularly as they grew olde alone.

Boys today may be getting a similar message - you MUST practice housework and childrearing, and failure to do so is unacceptable. This is the same sort of pressure we girls got in the 70’s, just the other way around.

This is baloney to me Bluesma. I was raised with three other siblings. I learned to do all this before I left the nest. I can sew, cook, clean and do all of these things. I do not come to a woman for these things for which I can do for myself. Todays high maintenance males ..many of them cannot or do not do these things. Many of them I have seen are pigs..the females too.

However..I do not find women as a whole coming to me to relieve me of my traditionally male chores or labors which is the point I was making. I am expected to do many of their chores and also my own. Particularly if great RISK is involved in it.

By the way..I agree with you ..that a woman and male both should teach their children in the direction of cutting the chord..not depending on it...forever.

More to come