• What does it mean to be a man?

    As may be inferred from my recent shift to the right, I have actually begun to question my ideas about gender equality. Not that equality of opportunity should be removed, but merely the notion that there should be random or equal distribution of women throughout the workforce which seems to belie many feminist treatises on the subject.

    I am not advocating going back to the state of things in the early and mid-century industrialized nations where women were primarily home-makers and men the bread-winners but I feel that that era has been much maligned and wrongly so and there are overlooked positives.

    These ideas have been swirling around in my mind recently as other leftist notions are smashed in my head and this video is one which particularly set me off in a particular direction.

    I've been aware about statistical fudgey committed by feminists to make a gender income gap which does not actually exist and denying the impact of patterns of decisions made by women which affect their income, skills and professions.

    This has lead me, not necessarily as a corollary but certainly inspired by these revelations, to ponder the essence of manliness. Despite my attempts to sever the idea of violence and other stereotypical inclinations of males I know I have never been able to do so successfully. I know when Arnold Schwatzeneggar blows up robots, it's awesome and manly. I know when a man faces adversity stoically and bravely, it is manly.

    With my recent move towards the right this has bothered me less and less. Women and men are different and these differences, be they biological or social, are not inherently evil and may be complementary. This of course seems self-evident and someone reading this may go "well no shit sherlock," but I'm just spelling out what I was mentally attempting to eradicate under what I now believe to be false notions.

    So I ask you, what does it mean to be a man?

    I would say a measure of strength and confidence should permeate a good man. A man should be shamelessly devoted in some capacity to both his family as well as a girlfriend, wife, etc. It is common to see that younger men are ashamed or embarrassed to be around family members in public, but this is behaviour I think should be shed after teenagerhood at the very latest.

    Rationality, which is generally accepted as coming more easily to men, should be embraced and an attempt should be made to avoid hot-headedness in most situations. Coming from this, patience should also be an embraced virtue.

    I haven't got much fleshed out beyond that, but you can probably see my general inspiration and I'm sure these ideas of manliness are not unknown to most Western, civilized citizens.

    A few more basic ideas which are springing to mind:

    - A tendency to be blunt and to the point. Efficiency oriented, but capable of curbing these when appropriate. ("Does my butt look big in this?")
    - Humble (Is this compatible with all the other traits? I think so, but I dunno for sure)
    - Indulgent in humour of offensive content, unafraid of breaking "politically correct" mores. (Nigger, spic, women jokes and the klike)
    - Intelligent (Vague much?)

    Just something to think about.

    "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." ~ Paul Johnson
  • That you love a good bj. And I'm not inferring your user name... If you catch my drift ;)

    But I jest, Esquire Burger.

    This has potential to get me thinking. I guess I'll revisit it later tonight.

    Ending the War on Sharing: http://stallman.org/articles/end-war-on-sharing.html

    Oh, and Aristotle seems like a massive faggot.
  • That you love a good bj.I don't think there's such thing as a bad bj, so I thought that was self-evident :P

    "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." ~ Paul Johnson
  • Your inherent problem - you essentialize both genders. They are not dichotomies, they are variables on a scale. A man who works as a nurse is as manly as a woman who assembles cars.

    Further, sex is gendered.

    Are there biological differences between men and women? Obviously. But how far and to what degree do they go? Hard to say. Again, sex is gendered. Can you say, with an honest mind, that you do not, in any degree whatsoever, project a certain idea of masculinity and femininity based on what you think is a man or a woman? I certainly can't. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty in my mind.

    Basically, this whole thread is just making gender anyway. You're asserting a specific type of masculinity here. Do note though, there is no THE masculinity. We can only talk about MASCULINITIES. Again, I refer back to my manly nurse and womanly car assembly-ist.

    This isn't feminist rantings. I always disliked classifying myself as such either way. But you should be very careful what you are saying and thinking here. I think there's a certain lack of self-reflection, or perhaps understanding, of the concept and performativity of gender in your post.

    A man is always as manly as he thinks he is. And really, that's all there is to it. Just like a woman is always as womanly as she thinks she is. And that's all there is to it. Again, it's a variable scale.

    So if you think those values you enlisted defines your definition of masculinity, fine enough. Just don't go tell another man that just because he cannot fulfill those values he's not manly. He simply adheres to a different definition of masculinity than you do. Again, MASCULINITIES, not masculinity.

    As for Arnie... ask yourself: do you think it's manly because you've been taught to believe is manly or because you believe there is some inherent natural quality of it that is manly, based on biology?

    I am not denying that what Arnie does is manly, but similarly, I think it's as awesome and cool when women blow up robots like Arnie does. Or at least, goes on bloody killing sprees like Arnie does. Unfortunately Hollywood rarely allows women to blow up giant robots.



    I really cannot deny the badassery of Selene. I cannot. Yet in my mind, would I never classify her as a man. Yes, I am guilty of gendering in this thread too.

  • I recognize that these ideas are essentially traditions and notions that we teach our children directly and which we observe through things like film, as you said, but I see no reason why that means there can't be generally agreed upon ideas about masculinity. These ideas are of course emergent and so I think we've seen a shift where before, men as bread-winners needed to be strong and courageous and protective of women and children whereas today men are allowed to be perceived as weaker, though obviously such notions are not entirely in vogue (See critiques of Justin Bieber, hipsters, etc.)

    And of course the subversion of these ideas can be refreshing at times, such as what you see in the clip you showed.

    "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." ~ Paul Johnson
  • Interesting forum post.

    As a woman I have to say, that I indeed prefer manly man (manly in a sort of traditional way). James Bond is that kind of ideal. Though I'd prefer devoted to one woman James Bond =].

    When I see younger men (more like boys) and how unmanly they act and look, I am sad, sometimes even disgusted. For example some of them obviously spend more time in front of a mirror doing their hair than most women. Of course I can't say, that it applies generally to all, but trend of feminization is set. Even here.

    There are even those subcultures of hispters or guidos for example.

    Well, well... this topic reminds me of this:


    Editado por DolceEssenza em Jan 18 2012, 22h38
  • Similarly, I prefer men with feminine features.

  • Society is reaping the rewards of the feminization of men already.

    When the Titanic sank, men that tried to enter the lifeboats before women and children were beat to a pulp by the other men aboard. When this Italian ship went down, pregnant women were shoved and bullies out of the way (while their husbands began to think about filing a lawsuit, instead of laying out the shit-for-brains who just manhandled his wife and child.)

    In the Polytechnique Massacre here in Canada, Marc Lépine, an anti-woman leftie who blamed his poor marks on women, entered a classroom, armed, and demanded all the men leave the room. The men obliged and continued to exit the room, even as Lépine opened fire on their classmates, friends, and girlfriends. Even the campus security, rather than storm the room and put two bullets in Lépine's knees (or head, I'm not fussy in cases like this), waited around for the RCMP.

    When a 28 year old male (we cannot, in good conscience, call him a "man") saw a 10-year-old boy getting sodomized in a shower by football coach Jerry Sandusky, he turned around and walked out of the locker room.

    Namby-pamby, post-moderns will say that gender is a social construct. Might be. But I know that losing that "construct" is a huge loss for humanity. "Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up." - G K Chesterton.

    A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. — Milton Friedman
  • Mosher, I fail to see how that has anything to do with the feminization of men (and I don't even like that term since it essentializes genders)? It has however so much to do with authority and whatnot.

    Further, maybe you should also blame the women for not protecting themselves or attempting to protect themselves? Civil courage is not explicit to men.


    I know which side I prefer, and it's not the left one ;)

    • Tuco1992 disse...
    • Usuário
    • Jan 25 2012, 16h58
    Good to know that to win Dolce's heart all I need to do is pick up a gun.
    Oh and a shaken Martini is a weak one (not very manly, is it).

    But really I agree with bj to an extent. There were reasons behind certain fences, but I think that these days there mostly moot. I can drink with the best of them but most women could probably beat me in an arm wrestle, tick one box and cross out another, we can't all be winners here and not all men easily fit into your masculine mold but they shouldn't be looked down on for it.

    It is also nice to think that we could defend our fellow students, but how many of us has had a gun pointed at our face and told to leave. I would also like to think I could stand my ground ( and for some people I probably could), but If I am being honest I would probably high tail it out of there.

    “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence”

    Richard Dawkins
  • Lea,

    "I fail to see how that has anything to do with the feminization of men."

    I'm actually not surprised by this statement; most of our generation would probably feel the same.

    However, a few decades ago, each of those stories that I shared would have gone very differently; indeed, I compared the Titanic to the Italian cruiseliner. When the men behaved unmanly there, they were set aright. By force, when necessary.

    "Further, maybe you should also blame the women for not protecting themselves or attempting to protect themselves? Civil courage is not explicit to men."

    This is ludicrous and disgusting. You wouldn't blame a woman for getting raped, would you? Why would you blame them for getting shot by a maniac?

    Besides, how do women get raped? Because, generally speaking, they are physically not as strong as men. I know that, these days, it's not popular to say that. Basically, men are becoming like the Eloi in H. G. Wells' "Time Machine." Weak, effete, self-absorbed, infantile.

    This is a real man, while we're on the topic of school shootings:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liviu_Librescu

    The men at Polytechnique should have behaved similar to that. They could have rushed Lépine and probably none of them would have died - I am skeptical of a limp-wristed, woman hater's ability to use a firearm on a moving, aggressive target. All dozen or so of those young guys should have slammed him down, wrested the firearm from him, beat him, and restrained him. How many would have died? 0-6, probably. He didn't even use a pistol, but a Ruger Mini, which has a long barrel - very hard to shoot close range.

    Academia has a lot to do with it, too. During the 1940s, most Americans had, on average, a grade 8 education. This is the generation that invented the TV and personal computer, defeated fascism in Europe, revolutionized the automobile and billions of other inventions. Nowadays, we have men in school until their late 20's and 30's, and by the time they DO graduate, they're off working, most likely, for the government or a non-profit.

    This story is probably the death knell of Western society, unless we can get our shit together. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003980.html

    Why is this 30 year old still in school? And why can't he buy his own condoms at age 30? This is a prime example. Men just don't know how to be men anymore. It would be infuriating if it wasn't so sad.

    A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. — Milton Friedman
  • Tuco1992 said:
    most women could probably beat me in an arm wrestle


    Lol please tell me you're kidding. And if not, start lifting weights. No one says you have to be Adonis or Schwarzenegger (I'm not!), but that is a bit much, dude...

    A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. — Milton Friedman
  • Oh come on! It's not just about guns =] Though my boyfriend is a soldier (military man), so there might be something about men with guns that arouses me... Ahh no... Actually, there's more to it than just guns. Now I am so inclined to sing odes to my boyfriend (or in other words everything I like about him). But I think it'd bore you.

    Maybe that picture I posted is a little bit extreme, but I think it helped me to explain myself. I am not all that good with words, especially in foreign languages.

    Maybe it's politically correct not to look down on feminine men, but I can't help myself not to do it... On the other hand, it's not like that among my friends are no at least a little bit feminine men.

    Academia has a lot to do with it, too. During the 1940s, most Americans had, on average, a grade 8 education. This is the generation that invented the TV and personal computer, defeated fascism in Europe, revolutionized the automobile and billions of other inventions. Nowadays, we have men in school until their late 20's and 30's, and by the time they DO graduate, they're off working, most likely, for the government or a non-profit.
    Agreed! Nowadays people are so obsessed with getting a degree at university... This itself might not sound all that bad... BUT! Horrendous amount of people study bullshit (environmental studies, philosophy, gender studies, european studies, musicology, film studies and so on and on...). Those people are good at writing essays about ... nothing. Or at least nothing important and on top of that those essays have no value, since they don't change anything, they won't make a new better technology. It's nothing, but a rant.


  • Agreed! Nowadays people are so obsessed with getting a degree at university... This itself might not sound all that bad... BUT! Horrendous amount of people study bullshit (environmental studies, philosophy, gender studies, european studies, musicology, film studies and so on and on...). Those people are good at writing essays about ... nothing. Or at least nothing important and on top of that those essays have no value, since they don't change anything, they won't make a new better technology. It's nothing, but a rant.


    Ehm...

    I don't need to remind you that it is thank to those gender people you are now capable of going to the uni yourself instead of being forced to be at home with kids?

    You study political science, I could equally argue how little that changes the world. The academia isn't about changing things, it's about gathering and spreading knowledge. Do you even realize what you say when you claim it's pointless to study philosophy...? Well, I think I let Waldheri explain the importance of philosophy for you when it comes to that one. Suffice to say, it is quite a ludicrous claim. We wouldn't even have adademia if people shared that notion with you, anyhow, because philosophy would've died out with the Greeks.

    I am happy you are not in charge of telling people what they should and should not do. You might be surprised how capable the humanist and social sciences are at changing the world. They don't invent new technologies, but they certainly help to progress OUR THOUGHTS.

  • I'm of the opinion that academia has an inflated sense of self-worth. The great inventions of the world came from drop outs (Like Einstein) who worked out of passion and genuine interest.

    Now academia may have a place in a civilization, I think it's pieces of paper have been over-valued and we are seeing the results of that, as previously stated, tons of students deep in debt with no skills for continuing that civilization. You need a certain percentage of people to commit themselves to making cars, food and other items that are essential and a far smaller percentage devoting themselves to entirely cerebral tasks like contemplating Plato. So it's not that philosophy is unimportant, it's more that far too many people are indulging in those sorts of studies without contributing to them.

    Women were always able to pursue degrees and atypical work back in the day, it's just that most had no incentive to because they were well cared for and had important things to do at home. There were plenty of women who had a passion for science and other such subjects who went and got their degrees and diplomas.

    Progress is a fickle word as those who use it often wind up promoting regression and decay, intentionally or unintentionally. Notions like appeasement were put forth by academia and the intelligentisia and was partly responsible for Europe nearly being the property of the Nazis. Similar ideas like nuclear disarmament are being propagated even today by academic sorts. Keynesian economics is pretty much the dominant economic theory put forth in academia, and yet it is highly destructive and fundamentally flawed. Academia is part of the reason affirmative action programs are put in place and there are a plethora of social phenomena that they pretend to have solutions to.

    "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." ~ Paul Johnson
  • There were no students of "gender studies" back then. And it was back then, when situation started changing for women. But it's not like that women were "oppressed" back then. Our primary role used to be different, because it was enough for just a man to go to work. And just like Burger said, women could do all sorts of stuff. If they wanted to of course. Also I don't think taking care of home is something to be looked down upon, it's still a quite important task to do, unless you want to live in a mess.

    You can't imagine, how much I regret those 5 years of my political science studies now. I finished my master degree just not to waste those 5 years completely. Also that's why I started studying certain foreign languages 2 years ago. I've also started taking "management" courses. And if I could come back in time, I'd make a very different decision those 5 years ago. I'd have probably tried some hard science (maybe something close to biology such as "molecular biology and genetics") or engineering or maybe industrial design or dressmaker? ... Even if I wasn't good enough to become the best of the best, I would love helping those best with their projects. Now I am of no help to those people... I am of no help to anyone, when it comes to my academic specialization. Who cares, that I know, that nazism is not fascism, how does it help, that I can tell a difference between political regime and political system? And name all the regimes and systems and so on and on and on...

    Progressing thoughts is not as important as progressing technology in my opinion.

    Nevertheless, let very few people study philosophy... What I however object is the amount of people at universities, which means that quality drops, but also that people are studying nonsense and keep inventing more and more useless "studies", the latest add I've noticed at the faculty of philosophy is "theory of interactive media" :D. By far the very most populated faculties are those of social sciences and philosophy, which is quite disturbing.

    I think the best contribution to society I can do now is to have children and educate them in a way, they would not become social scientists, philosophers or something like this. =]

    Besides, most social scientists seem to make our world worse, not better. At least in 20th and 21st century. I also have to say, that social scientists (social engineers) have no responsibility. And it's them, who try to dictate. In today's society. In modern times, those people are of pretty much no use mostly. Most of them can hardly find employment (not all of those tens of thousands of social scientists can be employed by the government or some NGO). I am not saying it's impossible to find a job, but of course preferred are engineers, technicians, medics, intelligent people willing to work manually and so on. It's them, who push us forward, who are the backbone of this society. And those people are slowly disappearing.

    To make at least some connection to the original post... I think all this is connected to feminization too. Feminized men just prefer contemplating to actually working. I am afraid most young men can hardly do at least a little bit complicated manual work and on top of that they look down on manual work and are unwilling to do it. Just like the numbers of capable, strong, efficient and competent policemen, military men, firefighters are slowly diminishing too.

  • We cannot progress technology without progressing or thoughts. I don't understand why you fail to see it more holistically, to be honest. For example, how many women have not helped to progress our world into what it is today that would otherwise not be able to do this because their voices would be silenced simply because they were women and their thoughts did thus not carry any merit?

    Also, I think you clearly overestimate the choices women had back then. I am not looking down upon people who choose to be homewives, but that's the thing - women back then didn't really have a choice. What you ended up doing in life had so much more to do with your social status and whom you married (let's not even assume there was a choice there) than what you wanted to do as a person.

    Gender studies came along as we reflected upon how men and women treated each other in history and to help us understand the thoughts that dictated peoples' lives back then and now. We can only learn from the past. Gender studies is instrinsically linked to the various waves of feminism. I don't know, to me it is very evident that the post-modern condition that shapes our lives today would not possible without the historical events that led to the rise of post-modernism, feminism and gender studies included. I do not want to go back to the life people led in Sweden 100 years ago. It was especially hard on women.

  • Dolce,

    I agree so much about doing things differently lol. I actually decided to drop out of uni, cut my losses, and look at doing something else (I'm looking at 2-year programs in either Investment Management, Finance, or Underwater Welding.) Good call on learning other languages. I really want to start studying either Mandarin or Arabic, and maybe finally become fluent in French. (I'm "functional" in French. If I woke up, stranded in Paris, I could order food and give directions to a cab, and board a plane fine. Just not able to be argumentative or poetic or things of that nature.)


    Another problem, in general, with academia is that there is no real diversity of thought. University, at least in Canada and America, is generally more about adopting the right "attitude" (liberalism, non-judgmental multi-culturalism, Keynesianism, Marxism, atheism) more than it is about pushing the envelope or challenging prevailing orthodoxies.

    It's funny, once the universities had been fully "converted" to those aforementioned "-isms", the educators became far more dogmatic than the original, often Catholic, academics who began universities in the first place.

    I'm digressing, though.

    As for what it takes to be a man, I'd add these to BJ's list:
    - Strength; including mental and emotional.
    - Maturity and Responsibility; also, part of maturity, I think, is knowing not to take life or yourself TOO seriously.
    - Courage. We've all but lost courage in our modern era. During the London riots last year, some of the most inspiring photographs were of Sikh men, aged 12-80, standing in front of their temples and storefronts. While the entitled English man-children were trashing things, these men merely stood there, with resolve, as if saying, "Break my property... I... Dare... You." Bad ass.

    A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. — Milton Friedman
  • LeaTelamon said:
    We cannot progress technology without progressing or thoughts.

    We can and especially now in modern times. I don't see, how all those philosophical / social theories can help us with technology.

    But I can make a compromise here, after all the creation of a new technology or advancement of technology is preceded by a thought, an idea ("why not make a cell phone without actual keyboard?" =] and so on). Let the thought be progressed. But by technicians, military men, medics, entrepreneurs etc. They can think in broader terms. Social scientists and philosophers living in their abstract world are not people worth listening, when it comes to theories with ambition to actually change / "improve" our life (condition). But of course this won't happen, social scientists seem to view themselves as some kind of saviours... =/

    Also, I think you clearly overestimate the choices women had back then. I am not looking down upon people who choose to be homewives, but that's the thing - women back then didn't really have a choice. What you ended up doing in life had so much more to do with your social status and whom you married (let's not even assume there was a choice there) than what you wanted to do as a person.
    I might overestimate, but you seem to underestimate (or it depends on geographical location). Now in all seriousness, women 100 - 80 years ago could do all sorts of stuff, at least in Habsburg Monarchy 100 years ago as well as in Czechoslovak Republic 90 - 80 years ago. The real difference for women of 1922 Czechoslovak Republic and of 2012 Czech Republic is contraception and abortion, so now we can have as much unprotected sex as we want without getting pregnant.

    Moshermonkey said:
    Dolce,

    I agree so much about doing things differently lol. I actually decided to drop out of uni, cut my losses, and look at doing something else (I'm looking at 2-year programs in either Investment Management, Finance, or Underwater Welding.) Good call on learning other languages. I really want to start studying either Mandarin or Arabic, and maybe finally become fluent in French. (I'm "functional" in French. If I woke up, stranded in Paris, I could order food and give directions to a cab, and board a plane fine. Just not able to be argumentative or poetic or things of that nature.)

    Whoa, great! Go for it! Underwater Welding seems tough, but I guess there are not many people doing it and as such, it might be a quite practical career choice =] I am studying Japanese language and Russian language. I was seriously considering Mandarin too. Less seriously I was considering Hindi, Arabic and Vietnamese. All this for practical reasons I might add. Same with Management. But still, a small part of me wants to do something more manual (pastry cook or dressmaker).

    And again, to contribute a little bit to the original discussion, here's a link to an essay called The Unmanning of America. (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unmanning-of-america)

  • That was an interesting essay, Dolce. It mentions a notion which I have recently surmised about but haven't looked into yet, that women's migration into the workforce was not as a result of feminist action, but a natural migration as the workforce changed to include more and more jobs that didn't require upper body strength and jobs that women had a natural talent for. The misallocation of cause is similar to how labour unions and intellectuals claim credit for ending child labour.

    So since women in the workforce are not going anywhere and male breadwinning is not the primary goal for men, nor supporting women, though those things certainly still exist to some extent, what do you think will either emerge as the "goal" for men? As mentioned in the essay there used to be a general approach to life; childhood, adolescence, marriage, childrearing, and death. If these middle two aspects are becoming less and less important to people, is there an imperative to bring them back (Even if not the old roles) or some kind of reworking of men and women's roles to stem either feminization or, and I would say far worse, the creation of man-children? (Questions directed at anybody, by the way)

    "The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." ~ Paul Johnson
  • We can and especially now in modern times. I don't see, how all those philosophical / social theories can help us with technology.

    Because they go hand in hand with the rest? Evolution theory was born out of the Enlightenment movement.

    I might overestimate, but you seem to underestimate (or it depends on geographical location). Now in all seriousness, women 100 - 80 years ago could do all sorts of stuff, at least in Habsburg Monarchy 100 years ago as well as in Czechoslovak Republic 90 - 80 years ago. The real difference for women of 1922 Czechoslovak Republic and of 2012 Czech Republic is contraception and abortion, so now we can have as much unprotected sex as we want without getting pregnant.

    My perspective is much wider than that. I also think of say, social status.

  • I think men themselves will someday realize that many women just don't want to marry man-children or overly feminine men. I am convinced most of us women (I mean at least a little bit mature ones) don't want a weepy, rude, lazy, non-independent boys, who on top of that make not much more or maybe less money than women... So I think, they (men) themselves will see, that this is not, what they want to live like, because such a way is not the way to impress a lady. Of course, not all men will adapt, but then there will always be "winners" and "losers". In this case gentlemen and man-children.

    Also I am of that opinion, that even though losers tend to be glorified by politically correct people, gentlemen will not just disappear, if ever. For the reason I mentioned above and for many other reasons I believe.

    To what men to say 'yes'? To what men 'no'? (a little list a certain woman made, it provides a hint or two: http://blissbombed.com/2012/01/hell-yes-hell-no/)


    LeaTelamon said:
    Because they go hand in hand with the rest? Evolution theory was born out of the Enlightenment movement.

    Or more likely the actual Enlightenment movement just reflected all the changes and technological progress and didn't give birth to it. If they even viewed themselves as some sort of movement at all.

  • This is a pretty good site for real men, and, more importantly, recovering sissies like me.

    http://artofmanliness.com/

    A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. — Milton Friedman
  • I think men themselves will someday realize that many women just don't want to marry man-children or overly feminine men. I am convinced most of us women (I mean at least a little bit mature ones) don't want a weepy, rude, lazy, non-independent boys, who on top of that make not much more or maybe less money than women... So I think, they (men) themselves will see, that this is not, what they want to live like, because such a way is not the way to impress a lady. Of course, not all men will adapt, but then there will always be "winners" and "losers". In this case gentlemen and man-children.

    I think this shows a narrow view of masculinity. It's not either or, it's a wide spectrum. If anything, in my experience, most of the so called macho men you are referring to are the ones I personally experience to be immature and childish in their behavior, especially those that are anti-feminism everything.

    Case in point: the early black metal movement for example. It's the epitome of childish men attempting to reject modernity at large. I don't know what you mean by gentlemen but chauvinistic men have never really attracted me anyway.

    In Sweden it is very much attractive for men to currently show interest in meeting women on equal terms so your statement is again very narrow-minded and only seems to cater your personal opinions on the subject rather than judging masculinity as a whole and how people over the world act differently according to their gender.


    Or more likely the actual Enlightenment movement just reflected all the changes and technological progress and didn't give birth to it. If they even viewed themselves as some sort of movement at all.


    I don't think this ever has been a matter of what came first. Rather, they all emerged at the same time. It's something holistic. The French revolution didn't occur as one individual instance but it occurred as a reaction of everything happening in France at the time and the history in which it was situated in and so on and so forth.

  • The very fact that you can't differentiate between "chauvinist" and "gentleman" is demonstrative of how much trouble our generation is in.

    Also... Long-haired, face-paint wearing, church-burning cowards aren't manly? Colour me surprised. :P

    A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. — Milton Friedman
Usuários anônimos não podem postar mensagens. É preciso fazer login ou criar uma conta para postar nos fóruns.