I thought this was interesting.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/are_men_obsolete.html
“Idolize gayness”, lol.
Never fear…as long as T-Nation is around, there will be real men.
[quote]forlife wrote:
“Idolize gayness”, lol.
Never fear…as long as T-Nation is around, there will be real men.[/quote]
Or at least 13 year-olds with internet access…
Honestly, there have always been effeminate men … they’re just being glamorized in the media more than before. Men are not and never will be obsolete … I think that whole notion is preposterous.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
Honestly, there have always been effeminate men … they’re just being glamorized in the media more than before. Men are not and never will be obsolete … I think that whole notion is preposterous.[/quote]
I agree their have always been effeminate men, BUT these days any man who is “manly” is a threat. Why is that I could get a sex change but I would have trouble finding a doctor to gives me steriods? You see what I’m getting at?
[quote]jawara wrote:
I thought this was interesting.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/are_men_obsolete.html [/quote]
This is better:
http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/polam13.htm
[quote]jawara wrote:
polo77j wrote:
Honestly, there have always been effeminate men … they’re just being glamorized in the media more than before. Men are not and never will be obsolete … I think that whole notion is preposterous.
I agree their have always been effeminate men, BUT these days any man who is “manly” is a threat. Why is that I could get a sex change but I would have trouble finding a doctor to gives me steriods? You see what I’m getting at?
[/quote]
I get what you’re saying but I’m not really buying it. Isn’t manliness inherent? You’re forgetting that women get sex changes also to have a manlier appearance and use steroids provided legally by their doctor for hormone therapy. Plus I don’t think you’d really have too much trouble finding a way to get steroids. I’d imagine it’d be more difficult to get a sex change than it would be to obtain steroids.
Besides, using two extremes to illustrate your point is like grasping for straws. The majority of the population aren’t taking steroids nor are they getting sex changes. The concentration of effeminate men in the authors part of the country is a lot higher than say Montana or Texas. If she had lived in a more rugged, conservative part of the country she wouldn’t have assumed there was a diminishing population of “real men” because she would be surround by predominantly men who qualify as rugged individualists. Her observation is a product of her environment and doesn’t necessarily reflect reality as a whole. Just as your juxtaposition of steroids and sex changes doesn’t reflect any real problem.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
jawara wrote:
polo77j wrote:
Honestly, there have always been effeminate men … they’re just being glamorized in the media more than before. Men are not and never will be obsolete … I think that whole notion is preposterous.
I agree their have always been effeminate men, BUT these days any man who is “manly” is a threat. Why is that I could get a sex change but I would have trouble finding a doctor to gives me steriods? You see what I’m getting at?
I get what you’re saying but I’m not really buying it. Isn’t manliness inherent? You’re forgetting that women get sex changes also to have a manlier appearance and use steroids provided legally by their doctor for hormone therapy. Plus I don’t think you’d really have too much trouble finding a way to get steroids. I’d imagine it’d be more difficult to get a sex change than it would be to obtain steroids.
Besides, using two extremes to illustrate your point is like grasping for straws. The majority of the population aren’t taking steroids nor are they getting sex changes. The concentration of effeminate men in the authors part of the country is a lot higher than say Montana or Texas. If she had lived in a more rugged, conservative part of the country she wouldn’t have assumed there was a diminishing population of “real men” because she would be surround by predominantly men who qualify as rugged individualists. Her observation is a product of her environment and doesn’t necessarily reflect reality as a whole. Just as your juxtaposition of steroids and sex changes doesn’t reflect any real problem.[/quote]
I see some of what your saying. I still think I’d have an easier time getting a sex change, plus its legal. I can agree with when you said the authour is a product of her environment, but when I see a media that glorifies effeminate men, a government that is constantly trying to take away the rights(God given??),freedoms,property and profits and giving to people who are less responsable I see a problem. We are breeding a country full of children who live only for orgasms, cars, and pointy shoes. Meanwhile their is a whole other idealogy that puts their family first, arent as materialistic, and would be more than happy to blow you and them selves up to stop our culture from influencing their culture. What are we going to do???
[quote]polo77j wrote:
I get what you’re saying but I’m not really buying it. Isn’t manliness inherent? You’re forgetting that women get sex changes also to have a manlier appearance and use steroids provided legally by their doctor for hormone therapy. Plus I don’t think you’d really have too much trouble finding a way to get steroids. I’d imagine it’d be more difficult to get a sex change than it would be to obtain steroids.
Besides, using two extremes to illustrate your point is like grasping for straws. The majority of the population aren’t taking steroids nor are they getting sex changes. The concentration of effeminate men in the authors part of the country is a lot higher than say Montana or Texas. If she had lived in a more rugged, conservative part of the country she wouldn’t have assumed there was a diminishing population of “real men” because she would be surround by predominantly men who qualify as rugged individualists. Her observation is a product of her environment and doesn’t necessarily reflect reality as a whole. Just as your juxtaposition of steroids and sex changes doesn’t reflect any real problem.[/quote]
I kinda agree with the link posted by the OP and hate to tell you guys but its going on even in the Gym. There are more and more boys lifting weight to get that look but they are all just boys and will never equal the responsibility of MEN they might take all kinds of pills and anything else to get big and strong but they are still not even close to being the type of men that made this country and keep it free for so long.
O and I find it really funny that you are saying that he needs to go to places that have real men and your location is Mass. I don’t think the Bull Dykes out at P-Town would qualify as Men so you might want to point her in a different direction. ( just a friendly little NY nip at a Masshole)
[quote]jawara wrote:
I thought this was interesting.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/are_men_obsolete.html[/quote]
It’s stupid.
Anyone remember the ancient greeks?
edit: nevermind i should have read the article.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jawara wrote:
I thought this was interesting.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/are_men_obsolete.html
This is better:
http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/polam13.htm
[/quote]
Excellent link.
Thanks.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jawara wrote:
I thought this was interesting.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/are_men_obsolete.html
This is better:
http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/polam13.htm[/quote]
Interesting links.There is no question that masculinity has been devalued, particularly since the 1960s.
Now, for example, if you conduct yourself in a traditionally manly way - take on responsibility, employ a good work ethic, be self-reliant, take care of people in your charge, emphasize strength and avoid weakness, be “comfortable in your own skin”, pursue challenging physical pursuits (like, gasp, hunting your own food) - no one cares.
On the other hand, if you whine like crazy, never shut up about your problems (which you constantly create), continue in perpetual, narcisisstic self-analysis about your life, screw up your life and people around you, emphasize your own weaknesses and vulnerabilities instead of being ashamed of them, seek out attention and constant approval from others - well, you get to be on Oprah.
I’d love to believe therein lies some pendulum that means we’ll have a rebound, but I am not so sure anymore.
The notion that men are obsolete is made possible by technology. I saw a commercial on TV for a show about female cops in Los Angeles (I think that’s where it was set). They were all small skinny chicks, but the commercial made it look like they were quite good at their jobs. Without a light weight pistol, taser, pepper spray, etc. these 120lb chicks would have zero chance against the average 200lb man. ZERO. But thanks to technology they can be very good cops.
The hard work of building civilization has always been done by men, I mean the back breaking labor of laying bricks, digging ditches for sewer systems, etc, have always required the physical strength of men. But today a woman can operate a backhoe or a bulldozer as good as any man, so excluding women from this kind of work makes no practical sense, and having a larger labor pool drives wages down, which employers love. But technology comes and goes, and while it might allow women to do work they were incapable of fifty years ago, who knows what the next fifty years will bring.
In the meantime, I think all of this existential moaning about us men being obsolete is counter productive. We’ve always faced obstacles. It used to be a good chance of being eaten by sabertoothed tigers, now it’s the estrogen fueled tyranny of the human resources department.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
I get what you’re saying but I’m not really buying it. Isn’t manliness inherent?
Besides, using two extremes to illustrate your point is like grasping for straws. The majority of the population aren’t taking steroids nor are they getting sex changes. The concentration of effeminate men in the authors part of the country is a lot higher than say Montana or Texas. If she had lived in a more rugged, conservative part of the country she wouldn’t have assumed there was a diminishing population of “real men” because she would be surround by predominantly men who qualify as rugged individualists. Her observation is a product of her environment and doesn’t necessarily reflect reality as a whole. Just as your juxtaposition of steroids and sex changes doesn’t reflect any real problem.[/quote]
Well it’s not necessarily inherent. You have a low fat, low cholesterol diet being pushed heavily in the media and public schools, which produces low testosterone, coupled with a loss of manual labor jobs. Her views are definately skewed by her environment, but her environment is becoming the norm. There are no more manufacturing jobs, and only a very tiny segment of the population makes their living through farming anymore. The only jobs left are in the cities, behind a desk.
100 years ago this chick probably would have lived in a city, surrounded by the same kind of effeminate guys. But her kind were the minority. Today they are the majority.
Lol @ the American Thinker article. If the glutton Michael Savage is now considered the height of unbridled masculinity, I think I’d much prefer being a metrosexual. My grandfather’s favorite movie was Shane.
The title character was manliness to him (and, I believe, much of his generation): courageous, patient, kind, selfless, with a quiet dignity and that’s the way he lived his life. And – gasp – he didn’t even have a manufacturing job or chew tobacco!
Now apparently you qualify if you yell really, really loud. Sad…
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jawara wrote:
I thought this was interesting.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/are_men_obsolete.html
This is better:
http://members.mountain.net/theanalyticpapers/polam13.htm
Interesting links.There is no question that masculinity has been devalued, particularly since the 1960s.
Now, for example, if you conduct yourself in a traditionally manly way - take on responsibility, employ a good work ethic, be self-reliant, take care of people in your charge, emphasize strength and avoid weakness, be “comfortable in your own skin”, pursue challenging physical pursuits (like, gasp, hunting your own food) - no one cares.
On the other hand, if you whine like crazy, never shut up about your problems (which you constantly create), continue in perpetual, narcisisstic self-analysis about your life, screw up your life and people around you, emphasize your own weaknesses and vulnerabilities instead of being ashamed of them, seek out attention and constant approval from others - well, you get to be on Oprah.
I’d love to believe therein lies some pendulum that means we’ll have a rebound, but I am not so sure anymore.[/quote]
We will have it one way or another way. One will be hard, the other just another swing of the pendulum.
I can tell you’re not an engineer.
The people coming up with the new tech are all men. Larry Summers was right - women are (usually) inherently disinterested in science and especially math. Go look at any undergraduate engineering class and it will be made up of 90% men. No men, no new tech. Also, women suck at handling tech. Ever seen a woman try to diagnose a car problem? Unclog a drain? Hook up a DVD player?
Don’t even get me started on the disaster that is women in management positions.
Also, it’s a lot harder for women to handle the incidents where something goes bump in the night without crying than men.
Right now, we’re in a situation of our own making in the West. We can unmake it when we collectively decide to recover our testicles.
I think we’ll be around for a few more millenia.
[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Lol @ the American Thinker article. If the glutton Michael Savage is now considered the height of unbridled masculinity, I think I’d much prefer being a metrosexual. [/quote]
Are those your only options? That is equally sad. The author is a recovering liberal of 30 years, so I don’t expect her to know a heck of a lot at this point. She does appear to have a handle on Leftist thuggery, though.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/letter_of_amends_from_a_recove.html
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
polo77j wrote:
I get what you’re saying but I’m not really buying it. Isn’t manliness inherent?
Besides, using two extremes to illustrate your point is like grasping for straws. The majority of the population aren’t taking steroids nor are they getting sex changes. The concentration of effeminate men in the authors part of the country is a lot higher than say Montana or Texas. If she had lived in a more rugged, conservative part of the country she wouldn’t have assumed there was a diminishing population of “real men” because she would be surround by predominantly men who qualify as rugged individualists. Her observation is a product of her environment and doesn’t necessarily reflect reality as a whole. Just as your juxtaposition of steroids and sex changes doesn’t reflect any real problem.
Well it’s not necessarily inherent. You have a low fat, low cholesterol diet being pushed heavily in the media and public schools, which produces low testosterone, coupled with a loss of manual labor jobs. Her views are definately skewed by her environment, but her environment is becoming the norm. There are no more manufacturing jobs, and only a very tiny segment of the population makes their living through farming anymore. The only jobs left are in the cities, behind a desk.
100 years ago this chick probably would have lived in a city, surrounded by the same kind of effeminate guys. But her kind were the minority. Today they are the majority. [/quote]
People have been living in cities for 5000 years at least. Every man used to leave his house in London during the 1800s armed with a derringer. It’s not the cities that are the problem, it’s the culture itself that is feminized/homosexualized.
Advances in technology are probably going to reverse the trend towards moving into the cities as well. A lot of jobs can be done from almost anywhere nowadays.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The hard work of building civilization has always been done by men, I mean the back breaking labor of laying bricks, digging ditches for sewer systems, etc, have always required the physical strength of men. But today a woman can operate a backhoe or a bulldozer as good as any man, so excluding women from this kind of work makes no practical sense, and having a larger labor pool drives wages down, which employers love. But technology comes and goes, and while it might allow women to do work they were incapable of fifty years ago, who knows what the next fifty years will bring.
I can tell you’re not an engineer.
The people coming up with the new tech are all men. Larry Summers was right - women are (usually) inherently disinterested in science and especially math. Go look at any undergraduate engineering class and it will be made up of 90% men. No men, no new tech. Also, women suck at handling tech. Ever seen a woman try to diagnose a car problem? Unclog a drain? Hook up a DVD player?
Don’t even get me started on the disaster that is women in management positions.
Also, it’s a lot harder for women to handle the incidents where something goes bump in the night without crying than men.
Right now, we’re in a situation of our own making in the West. We can unmake it when we collectively decide to recover our testicles.
I think we’ll be around for a few more millenia. [/quote]
They can’t change a fax cartridge, let alone those other hard things. Not all, but many.
My wife likes girlie things, and she can do some fixing and stuff, my daughter shoots. My stepdaughter is old school girlie.
When my son and I want to do somethigng