The "Neutering" of the American Male

[-Cp]

Gone are the days when "Men were Men" who thought nothing about protecting the lives of Women and Children - gone are the days of T.V. when we saw this portrayed in programming on shows that were even as silly as a like Gilligan's Island. Many times - when faced with dangers, the men on the island would step out first in the face of danger in order to keep the women safe. In contrast to today's T.V. - where we now see the typical Male father figure dumbed down to the point of being a mouse snickering in the corner with a piece of cheese. Does Hollywood emulate life or is life emulating Hollywood?

Perhaps the problems we face in this day and age is a culmination of issues that have "neutered" our men:

1. An epic divorce rate that almost always bastardizes the man and leaves a single-mom raising her sons w/o a good male role model.
2. Dads who are still married yet can quote their favorite sports team’s statistics but can't tell you a damn thing about their kids' school grades.
3. "Career parents" - parents who place their earnings above the welfare of their kids and ultimately make their kids pay a horrible price of being raised in Day Care or raise themselves.
4. "It's all about you son" - this ideology that teaches everyone to "look out for #1" - "make sure you always take care of you" is popular vernacular these days.

In light of the school attacks we've seen over the past few years I can't help but wonder what the outcome would be in these horrible scenarios if even 1 or 2 boys and/or young adult males stood up as "MEN" and stepped out to attack the aggressors in an effort to protect the women/girls in the classrooms where these crimes were perpetrated.

How is it we now have boys who are so worried about self preservation that they don't - for a second - step up to the plate in face of danger and at least attempt to take action. Instead - like sheep - they line up in order to be killed execution-style as was the case we read about now in the recent Virginia Tech massacre.

My wife and I will be sitting all of our kids down and talking to them about the importance of making sure to always do what's right even if it means stepping out in the face of danger in an effort to protect others.

Hind-sight is always 20/20 for sure and the point of this isn't to pour salt on any wounds of those families who lost loved ones but it is meant to underscore how (generally speaking) our men have turned into mice.

[darin]

It's been said one of the most grave injustices bestowed upon our children is the idea that nothing is worth fighting, or dying for.

[Trigg]

I was surprised that no one jumped him, especially when I heard about him lining people up and shooting them in the head.

Then again, I don't know how I would have reacted since I've never been in a situation where I needed to defend myself.

[Trigg]

In contrast to today's T.V. - where we now see the typical Male father figure dumbed down to the point of being a mouse snickering in the corner with a piece of cheese. Does Hollywood emulate life or is life emulating Hollywood?


My husband and I have noticed this going on for years. I don't think there is a sitcom out there that doesn't have an idiot father with an all knowing wife.

The hubby blaims womens lib.

[Abbey Marie]

My husband and I were talking about this. One of the witnesses to the shootings, a strong looking young man, said Cho ran out of ammo and stopped to reload the same gun (the .22) I was wondering why no one took that opportunioy to tackle him. The guy who told the tale took that time to burrow in deeper under some desks.

All you gun guys out there- wouldn't there be enough time to tackle someone who is reloading? Or is it done too quickly?

[darin]

Confusion and Panic. Unless I've been in that situation I can only brag about what I'd HOPE to do...and that is, pummel that son of a bitch (no offense to his mother) into submission with whatever I could find.

[Mr. P]

In contrast to today's T.V. - where we now see the typical Male father figure dumbed down to the point of being a mouse snickering in the corner with a piece of cheese. Does Hollywood emulate life or is life emulating Hollywood?


My husband and I have noticed this going on for years. I don't think there is a sitcom out there that doesn't have an idiot father with an all knowing wife.

The hubby blaims womens lib.

I'm with him..sorry ladies, it did some good but I think it did far more harm.

[Hobbit]

There's a magic number, somewhere just shy of 30 ft. Within that range, unless the gun is ready to fire and already pointed at you, the shooter cannot bring the weapon to bear and fire before you close to melee. Even with a trained commando, you've got a good 3 seconds minimum to charge the guy if he's reloading.

Now, I've never had a gun in my face, but I've stood up and hit guys twice my size, knowing they would probably win a fight, just to let them know I wasn't going down quietly. The only way I'll die on my knees is if I have a stroke while praying.

[Gaffer]

Hobbit has it right. You have a range that you can act while someone is reloading. And unless your trained in combat reloading you won't be able to do it fast and keep an eye on your targets. But under panic conditions I'm sure no one there thought about that. They were just trying to get out of the line of fire.

Also it depends on what was between the shooter and the people he's shooting at. Desks, chairs, bodies? All that has to be navigated before you reach him. what would have been best would be for everyone to start throwing things at him as he tries to reload. That would give people time to rush him. But I'm sure none of that crossed anyones mind because it was not something anyone would even dream would happen in that setting.

[LiberalNation]

The feminist movement did a lot of good for woman. As for weak guys, might be a sterotype in sitcoms but many action movies still have the tough guy saving the girl, even in horror/actions like Constantine.

[Hobbit]

The feminist movement did a lot of good for woman. As for weak guys, might be a sterotype in sitcoms but many action movies still have the tough guy saving the girl, even in horror/actions like Constantine.

The only modern action hero who acts like a real man is James Bond, and the latest movie explains why he later acts that way. Most of the action heroes now are 'reluctant heroes' with a 'soft side.'

It's also impossible not to notice the trend of wimpy guys in real life. Just look around you at how many guys are 'whipped,' and what was the whole 'metrosexual' movement about. That one lasted less than 2 years because a metrosexual isn't manly enough to attract any woman who isn't interested in a slave with a penis.

[Nukeman]

There is a great article in Mens Health the title is "Are You A Pussy".
It is really a good article and I think a lot of men especially in the larger cities are for the most part "wussified"!!!

I agree with Trigg, This stems from men being emasculated by the NOW. I'm not saying womens rights are not to be respected but quite the opposite.

Women are to be repected and treated curtiously at all times. My wife comes first above all else. My sons hold the doors for women an other people all the time and very rarely do they get even a thank you. Manners have gone out the window in the last 25-30 years.

With manners and respect gone out the window how could you even think about helping someone or even putting your life in danger for a stranger. This is the problem with America's youth today. Parents don't teach their kids proper repect for others namely thier elders, also men are portrayed as such stupid wusses that is all little boys see on TV so that is what they turn out to be, unless they are guided by strong parents. This means a STRONG MALE ROLE MODEL AS WELL AS A STRONG RESPECTED FEMALE FIGURE.

If boys grow up in this environment of repect and manners and remembering to act like a man at all times and to always repect thier mothers, wives and sisters they will be better adults willing to defend and protect others who are in need. They will also grow to expect such behavior of others when it come to the women and children of thier families.

I can still remember a time when my older two children were little. My son and daughter were playing at a McD's and a bigger kid started picking on my daughter, before my wife or I could get to the play area my son had tackeld this other child and had him pinned to the ground and said in very clear language "NO ONE PICKS ON MY LITTLE SISTER" Now that being said they do argue amongst themselves now that they are in their teens but i guarntee that if this situation ever raised it ugly head again i would probably be bailing my son out of jail for kicking the crap out of some other kid..

I think a lot of men have lost sight of what it means to be a man, I know it means differnt thing's to different people but at the core the values are always the same.

I would like to start a new thread as to what others think it means to be a man.. just to go along with this one..

[CockySOB]

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/essays/41/


The Pussification Of The Western Male
Kim du Toit
November 5, 2003
1:24 AM

We have become a nation of women.

It wasn’t always this way, of course. There was a time when men put their signatures to a document, knowing full well that this single act would result in their execution if captured, and in the forfeiture of their property to the State. Their wives and children would be turned out by the soldiers, and their farms and businesses most probably given to someone who didn’t sign the document.

There was a time when men went to their certain death, with expressions like “You all can go to hell. I’m going to Texas.” (Davy Crockett, to the House of Representatives, before going to the Alamo.)

There was a time when men went to war, sometimes against their own families, so that other men could be free. And there was a time when men went to war because we recognized evil when we saw it, and knew that it had to be stamped out.

There was even a time when a President of the United States threatened to punch a man in the face and kick him in the balls, because the man had the temerity to say bad things about the President’s daughter’s singing.

We’re not like that anymore.

Follow the link and read it all. Kim nails it on the head.....

[Hobbit]

I think the problems created by feminism are expressed best in a scene from T3. Late in the movie, John Conner and Catherine Bruster are running down a hallway, and are in the possession of a few firearms. They get floored by an explosion, then see an ultra-maneuverable jet fly up an point towards them. There's an AK-47 right there. The two look at each other with looks that say, "Hey John, are you gonna DO anything?" and, "I can't. I'm scared." At that moment, the girl picks up the AK and unloads into the thing. Now, I'm as turned on as any other guy by a hot woman who knows how to handle fully automatic firearms, but guys are supposed to be raised to, if nothing else, jump in front of the bullet to save the woman, not sit on the ground whimpering while the woman saves you. In a society where the men refuse to be men, the women must be men, and women...SUCK at being men, no matter how hard or sincerely they try.

[Nuc]

Yep feminism started because women wanted to be men, but the end result is the men became women. :lame2:

[Nienna]

I think the problems created by feminism are expressed best in a scene from T3. Late in the movie, John Conner and Catherine Bruster are running down a hallway, and are in the possession of a few firearms. They get floored by an explosion, then see an ultra-maneuverable jet fly up an point towards them. There's an AK-47 right there. The two look at each other with looks that say, "Hey John, are you gonna DO anything?" and, "I can't. I'm scared." At that moment, the girl picks up the AK and unloads into the thing. Now, I'm as turned on as any other guy by a hot woman who knows how to handle fully automatic firearms, but guys are supposed to be raised to, if nothing else, jump in front of the bullet to save the woman, not sit on the ground whimpering while the woman saves you. In a society where the men refuse to be men, the women must be men, and women...SUCK at being men, no matter how hard or sincerely they try.

OMG!!!! I can't rep you again! But that is EXACTLY it! That's why the feminist movement, at its present stage, is such a huge disastrous lie. It tells women they can be the woman AND the man, and leaves men with no position at all.

There is a line of authority in a family. It starts with God, if you choose to believe in Him, then Jesus under God, then the Man, his Wife, then the children. Even if someone doesn't follow God, the human rule still applies. The man is the Head of his family. When the woman tries to be the head, or is FORCED to be the head, it's highly unsatisfactory, for everyone. People higher in the chain have the RESPONSIBILTY of protecting those lower on the chain. In turn, whoever is lower on the chain has the responsibility to SUBMIT to and SUPPORT those higher on the chain. It's for their own benefit. When women try to take charge, at least in a family, they are upsetting the natural order of things. It's stupid of them, because it doubles their burden; they must assume the responsiblities of both the woman and the man (which is impossible to begin with), kicks the man out of his place, leaving him with no position and no purpose. So you have an overworked woman, a downtrodden man, and the kids are left to with no discipline and no respect. This is how feminism in its present incarnation is the destruction of the family unit.

[Nienna]

Yep feminism started because women wanted to be men, but the end result is the men became women. :lame2:

Men didn't become women. Like Hobbit said, women SUCK at being men, but men also SUCK at being women. Women have tried to take over, but men just are NOT as good at supporting, helping, intuitively understanding, and bringing people together in cooperation. There is something in every man I have ever known... even if they are placed in a subordinate position, they still have that DESIRE or urge to lead. They don't take the woman's place, if the woman takes theirs; instead, they become emasculated, dejected, dehumanized.

[LiberalNation]

Women have tried to take over, but men just are NOT as good at supporting, helping, intuitively understanding, and bringing people together in cooperation. There is something in every man I have ever known... even if they are placed in a subordinate position, they still have that DESIRE or urge to lead. They don't take the woman's place, if the woman takes theirs; instead, they become emasculated, dejected, dehumanized.
Wow what sexist viewpoints you have. No wonder it took so much fighting by the feminist movement to even get woman equal rights to men.

So men desire to dominate woman and woman should allow it and do all they can to protect the fragile male ego to keep from emasculating him no matter what her goals are, career or otherwise. Woman can lead, especially in the workplace today. If a man can't stand a strong woman that their problem not hers. Every individual has the right to strive to be what that want to be no matter the societies prejudices.

[Nukeman]

Wow what sexist viewpoints you have. No wonder it took so much fighting by the feminist movement to even get woman equal rights to men.

So men desire to dominate woman and woman should allow it and do all they can to protect the fragile male ego to keep from emasculating him no matter what her goals are, career or otherwise. Woman can lead, especially in the workplace today. If a man can't stand a strong woman that their problem not hers. Every individual has the right to strive to be what that want to be no matter the societies prejudices.You misunderstand the difference between dominate and respect. Respect is a two way street.

Would you rather have a man who always differs to you? If so how does that make you any different from a chauvinistic male!!

Just because a man stands up for what he believes in and "takes care of his family" and "provideds for his family" does not mean he doesnt repect and listen to his wife. What you fail to realize is that the old saying of "BEHIND EVERY GREAT MAN IS A GREAT WOMAN" This statemen couldnt be any more true, but hey you and your lesbian lifestyle will never understand that will you!!

[-Cp]

And what a complete lack of comprehension and ability to read you have...


Wow what sexist viewpoints you have. No wonder it took so much fighting by the feminist movement to even get woman equal rights to men.

So men desire to dominate woman and woman should allow it and do all they can to protect the fragile male ego to keep from emasculating him no matter what her goals are, career or otherwise. Woman can lead, especially in the workplace today. If a man can't stand a strong woman that their problem not hers. Every individual has the right to strive to be what that want to be no matter the societies prejudices.

[LiberalNation]

Nukeman, why should the woman have to be behind the man. It should be every persons personal choice regardless of gender.

[darin]

Nukeman, why should the woman have to be behind the man. It should be every persons personal choice regardless of gender.


You are defensive because you are afraid of the Truth. You are afraid of the truth because it'd force you to re-evaluate yourself. You don't want to re-evaluate yourself because your sense of Ego has been artificially inflated to the point where you think you should never have to change your point of view, your behaviour, or ANYTHING you don't "WANT" to change. Changing would mean a SEVERE BLOW to that Ego.

There is ABSOLUTELY absolute truth. Your version of truth, if not accurate is 'falsehood'. You and those around you who tell you anything different than what Hobbit and Nienna are saying in this thread are doing you a DIS-service; they are lying to you, probably out of ignorance. But mostly out of fear and hatred of Truth.

[Hobbit]

Nukeman, why should the woman have to be behind the man. It should be every persons personal choice regardless of gender.

It creates the same kinds of problems as turning, say, a lion into a vegetarian. Over the millenia of human existance, males have adapted to the roles of leadership, warfare, and intensive manual labor. Women have adapted to the roles of nurturing, child-rearing, and raising a family. I have never seen a couple with a dominant woman and a submissive man where both of them were not somehow miserable. Even looking to ancient Biblical ideas of the role of man and woman, where the woman is told to be submissive, the man is still told to love and respect his wife. It's not an unequal relationship. It's just not a relationship with interchangable roles where both are the same. Different does not always mean unequal.

Now, while I'm sure there are notable exceptions to a woman's ability to completely take charge, I think it's quite telling that the first woman speaker of the house is a petty bully, as is the one who aspires to be the first woman president.

Now, this is a free country and it should be every woman's (or man's) choice. However, I think this society would be better off if men stopped abandoning their women and women stopped trying to dominate their men.

[Nukeman]

It creates the same kinds of problems as turning, say, a lion into a vegetarian. Over the millenia of human existance, males have adapted to the roles of leadership, warfare, and intensive manual labor. Women have adapted to the roles of nurturing, child-rearing, and raising a family. I have never seen a couple with a dominant woman and a submissive man where both of them were not somehow miserable. Even looking to ancient Biblical ideas of the role of man and woman, where the woman is told to be submissive, the man is still told to love and respect his wife. It's not an unequal relationship. It's just not a relationship with interchangable roles where both are the same. Different does not always mean unequal.

Now, while I'm sure there are notable exceptions to a woman's ability to completely take charge, I think it's quite telling that the first woman speaker of the house is a petty bully, as is the one who aspires to be the first woman president.

Now, this is a free country and it should be every woman's (or man's) choice. However, I think this society would be better off if men stopped abandoning their women and women stopped trying to dominate their men.:clap: :clap: :clap:

You must spread some rep before giving it to hobbit again.....

[Nukeman]

Nukeman, why should the woman have to be behind the man. It should be every persons personal choice regardless of gender.

I never said the woman has to be "behind" the man I feel the woman and man should be beside one another. This being said in times of conflict, for lack of a better term, I would be "IN FRONT" of my wife and children. I am there to protect them at all cost to myself. This is self sacrifice for the others I love. What better way could you show how strongly you feel for your family if not by putting yourself in harms way and by providing for them daily..

If you prefer someone who will always hide in your shadow more power to you..

Men in this country are being percieved as slacker do nothings and also very cowardly to others in the world. Do you really want the rest of the world to think that the men of the US are weak and cowardly??? I can think of nothing that would bring about the ruin of this country faster than for the rest of the world to percieve us as weak..

When push comes to shove who would you rather have fight for you your "girlfriend" or a man who can fight off other men..????

[Abbey Marie]

...
Now, while I'm sure there are notable exceptions to a woman's ability to completely take charge, I think it's quite telling that the first woman speaker of the house is a petty bully, as is the one who aspires to be the first woman president.
...


Hobbit, you may be on to something there...

One notable exception is Condy Rice. I never get that bully (and in the case of sHrillery, foul-mouthed), vibe from her. To date, she has no interest in being Pres.

[theHawk]

Different does not always mean unequal.


And unequal doesn't mean one is better than the other. Men and women are NOT equal, but it doesn't mean one is better than the other.

Personally, I'd argue women are "better" than men. :boobies:

[Mr. P]

And unequal doesn't mean one is better than the other. Men and women are NOT equal, but it doesn't mean one is better than the other.

Personally, I'd argue women are "better" than men. :boobies:

TRAITOR!

But then without em we wouldn't have birthday cakes or holiday decorations or tons of other stuff, not to mention something nice to snuggle with.

No guys, the dog stinks!

[LiberalNation]

It creates the same kinds of problems as turning, say, a lion into a vegetarian. Over the millenia of human existance, males have adapted to the roles of leadership, warfare, and intensive manual labor. Women have adapted to the roles of nurturing, child-rearing, and raising a family. I have never seen a couple with a dominant woman and a submissive man where both of them were not somehow miserable. Even looking to ancient Biblical ideas of the role of man and woman, where the woman is told to be submissive, the man is still told to love and respect his wife. It's not an unequal relationship. It's just not a relationship with interchangable roles where both are the same. Different does not always mean unequal.
Not really, the role of woman and men is a cultural thing, different in different places. Some places woman do all the work manual labor included but are not the leaders, in others the females play a dominant role, take on mutable husbands ect.

Just because in cultures like ours based on Christianity & Islam that has woman submissive doesn’t mean they are like that everywhere or expected to be in every culture or that it's better. Woman having equal rights and responsiblities in our society has greatly improved our society.

[LiberalNation]

IMen in this country are being percieved as slacker do nothings and also very cowardly to others in the world. Do you really want the rest of the world to think that the men of the US are weak and cowardly??? I can think of nothing that would bring about the ruin of this country faster than for the rest of the world to percieve us as weak...
Only by the muslim world/ME are we being considered so but then in their culture woman are not expected or allowed to carry a gun and be hands on in war.


When push comes to shove who would you rather have fight for you your "girlfriend" or a man who can fight off other men????
Depends, modern weapons have really evened things out. If my girlfriend had a gun and a man didn't and I had to choose one to protect me I'd choose the girl because she now would be more able. If it was a fist fight and my girl couldn't fight I'd choose the guy for size. If a knife fight and my girl was fast and good with a knife but the guy looked slow and easy, the girl again.

[-Cp]

Just because in cultures like ours based on Christianity & Islam that has woman submissive doesn’t mean they are like that everywhere or expected to be in every culture or that it's better. Woman having equal rights and responsiblities in our society has greatly improved our society.

Can you name me one region of the world that has progressed so far so fast as westernized culture has where women play the "dominate" role?

Also... (as in typical liberal fashion) you're confusing rights equality and roles...

My wife is my equal partner in the eyes of God that doesn't mean she has the dominate role, however - that is a responsibility I've been charged with.

Roles do not deteremine equality.. Do not sports teams have different roles for each player? Is somehow the Center on a Basketball team greater than the forwards or guards? Are they not all equal team mates? Is the coach - because he's the LEADER - make him better than the people on the team? Are not the two (coach and player) completely dependant on each other?

[darin]

Not really, the role of woman and men is a cultural thing, different in different places.

Naw - it's a fundamental Biological/spiritual/psychological difference, regardless of culture.

[LiberalNation]

It also changes throughout history as well as culture. Gender roles are defined by your society. Men and woman can equally lead depending on personality. Some men can't, some men can, some woman can't, some woman can.

[darin]

It also changes throughout history as well as culture. Gender roles are defined by your society. Men and woman can equally lead depending on personality. Some men can't, some men can, some woman can't, some woman can.


You are still wrong. We're not talking about specific ones or twos...we're talking about entire genders.

[LiberalNation]

tWe are talking entire genders and gender roles. It is more socially aceptable for woman to lead, work, and study now and they are and proving succesfull at it in many cases. Then there's people for whatever reason want to turn back the clock when society was totally male dominated for whatever reason.

[Abbey Marie]

tWe are talking entire genders and gender roles. It is more socially aceptable for woman to lead, work, and study now and they are and proving succesfull at it in many cases. Then there's people for whatever reason want to turn back the clock when society was totally male dominated for whatever reason.

I surely do not want to turn back the clock. I was able to get a law degree, and had job opportunities, and I want my daughter to have the same if she chooses. Anyone who wants to should have the right to purse what they are qualified to do.

However, when society bends the rules to ensure that everyone can do everything, I disagree. Such as lowering the number of lbs. a female firefighter must carry on her back, so women can pass the test. Make the test what it should be to be the safest and most efficient way of fighting fires, and then do not deviate.

Having had much more experience than you at 17, I can also tell you that many, many women find that after they have a child, they find it extremely hard to leave that child in someone else's hands, and often they just retire. The office's allure is gone. How do you explain that phenomenon? Is it cultural or biological?

[darin]

tWe are talking entire genders and gender roles. It is more socially aceptable for woman to lead, work, and study now and they are and proving succesfull at it in many cases. Then there's people for whatever reason want to turn back the clock when society was totally male dominated for whatever reason.


This has NOTHING to do with social acceptability. It has EVERYTHING to do with "How we, as humans, are CREATED to be." It has EVERYTHING to do with "Just the way things are - so instead of trying to COMBINE the genders and their strengths, let's CELEBRATE DIVERSITY by thanking GOD for having the wisdom to make us DIFFERENT" :)

[LiberalNation]

We are different I agree but if a woman can meet the same standards as a man for a job or task societal constricts should not keep them from doing it. Saying men are good leaders and woman leading emasculates them is stupid. If she's a better leader that's their problem not hers but men in society don’t always see that. That is what I'm saying DMP.

[LiberalNation]

I can also tell you that many, many women find that after they have a child, they find it extremely hard to leave that child in someone else's hands, and often they just retire. The office's allure is gone. How do you explain that phenomenon? Is it cultural or biological?
Many but not all and I'm sure biology plays a part. I know a lot of woman who work to get away from their kids 24/7 and out in the real world. They could go on welfare, would actually make more money on it but don't and that's basicaly the reason.

[Abbey Marie]

Many but not all and I'm sure biology plays a part. I know a lot of woman who work to get away from their kids 24/7 and out in the real world. They could go on welfare, would actually make more money on it but don't and that's basicaly the reason.

Why did they have kids?

[darin]

We are different I agree but if a woman can meet the same standards as a man for a job or task societal constricts should not keep them from doing it. Saying men are good leaders and woman leading emasculates them is stupid. If she's a better leader that's their problem not hers but men in society don’t always see that. That is what I'm saying DMP.


When a wife, for example, Lords over a husband she breaks his will/spirit, AND destroys the best parts of what make her a woman in the first place. that's the point, young padme.

[LiberalNation]

because they did, not like it was planned. You may have sex but not want kids, sometimes it'll work, sometimes not.

[Nienna]

tWe are talking entire genders and gender roles. It is more socially aceptable for woman to lead, work, and study now and they are and proving succesfull at it in many cases. Then there's people for whatever reason want to turn back the clock when society was totally male dominated for whatever reason.

You are very confused about gender roles and allowing opportunities. Gender roles have to do SPECIFICALLY with a man and a woman in their relationship. I don't think anyone is claiming that women should not be allowed to vote, hold management positions, etc. But, men and women are DIFFERENT, have different emotional needs that cannot be met in a unisex society.

[LiberalNation]

When a wife, for example, Lords over a husband she breaks his will/spirit, AND destroys the best parts of what make her a woman in the first place. that's the point, young padme.
Also the guys problem, shouldn't have married someone if he couldn't handle who they were. When a man lords over a woman who is not submissive it will destroy her spirit. Same difference.

[darin]

Many but not all and I'm sure biology plays a part. I know a lot of woman who work to get away from their kids 24/7 and out in the real world. They could go on welfare, would actually make more money on it but don't and that's basicaly the reason.

Out in the REAL world? HOLY Crap - that's exactly the problem! Society says having a CAREER is more important - more REAL - than raising a healthy FAMILY. I swear, Women's Lib is straight from the pits of hell. That lame-ass argument that raising children is anything LESS than the most honorable profession...Of course, devaluing Children, and their raising WOULD make it easier to kill them before birth - but I digress.. :(

[LiberalNation]

It doesn't say it's more importent it says it's an option and woman should not be looked down upon for choosing it.

[darin]

Also the guys problem, shouldn't have married someone if he couldn't handle who they were. When a man lords over a woman who is not submissive it will destroy her spirit. Same difference.

Honey - you have it SOO Ass-backwards...

When a wife SUBMITS to the husband-ship of her man, it will set her FREE...it will make her BETTER

(sigh) You POOR girl. Really!!

[LiberalNation]

No it wont if her husbands sucks or his wishes are not her own. Some woman do not fit into a traditional mold and that would not work for them either.

[darin]

No it wont if her husbands sucks or his wishes are not her own. Some woman do not fit into a traditional mold and that would not work for them either.

If her husband SUCKS? lmao...Dude - don't marry men who suck. Easy as pie. :)

And get this - How her HUSBAND acts in HIS responsibilities has nothing to do with it. If the wife Submits her authority UNDER His - however crappy of a job he's doing (as long as he's not endangering himself, she, or the kids), then SHE is doing HER job. Get it?

If a woman doesn't 'fit' into that mold, there's a GOOD chance she WANTS to be in that mold, or her parents failed her.

[darin]

because they did, not like it was planned. You may have sex but not want kids, sometimes it'll work, sometimes not.

Not sure what you mean here - any clarification, love?

[LiberalNation]

So she should be unhappy because you consider doing her job. Sorry not her job, it's nothing but a societal constraint. Which she can do is (A) pressure him to change or (B) file for divorce. It's not her "job" to take it anymore than it's a guys to take a girl he also can't deal with. That's called the modern world and is a pretty good model that gives both genders more freedom. If they want to go traditional sure that's there choice but everyone doesn't and it wouldn't work for everyone so pushing it as the only right or good way is flat out stupid.

[LiberalNation]

Not sure what you mean here - any clarification, love?

What clairification, they had kids whether they really wanted them at the time or not and they love their kids. They just would rather work then be on welfare and spend 24/7 with them.

[Abbey Marie]

because they did, not like it was planned. You may have sex but not want kids, sometimes it'll work, sometimes not.

Maybe once, but more? Cop out argument. In any event, once the kids are there, planned or not, why would any parent with a shred of decency run away from their own children? She needs to know it's time to woman-up and deal.

[LiberalNation]

It's not running away if the kids is taken care of. You can love someone without the need to be around them 24/7 even kids.

[darin]

What clairification, they had kids whether they really wanted them at the time or not and they love their kids. They just would rather work then be on welfare and spend 24/7 with them.

Then you missed my point. Calling "Away from the kids" the "Real World" betrays ignorance about what is IMPORTANT in life. :)

[LiberalNation]

What is importent is subjective. What is importent in life to you may not be for everyone.

[manu1959]

It's not running away if the kids is taken care of. You can love someone without the need to be around them 24/7 even kids.

totally disagree....i have coache youth sports for 30 years....the latch key kids areetotally differnt....

[darin]

It's not running away if the kids is taken care of. You can love someone without the need to be around them 24/7 even kids.

If the mother has the OPTION to stay home, financially, leaving the kids with a daycare shows she loves MONEY or CAREER more than kids. That's the point. Now, to what degree? that's an individual thing. Said another way, I'd argue the kids CANNOT be "Taken Care Of" in the true-sense of the word, if both parents work. Sometimes, that's all a family can do. I recognize that. However, I doubt ANYONE would say it's 'ideal'.

Again you dip into logical fallacy with your 24/7 comment. It's ludicrous to think anyone is around somebody ALL The time. People have to shit, shower, and sleep. ;)

[darin]

What is importent is subjective. What is importent in life to you may not be for everyone.

THAT is my point. Don't you see? People are doing THEMSELVES and their FAMILIES a dis-service by placing themselves (their career, their money, whatever) AHEAD of their family. People need to RE-PRIORITIZE to fall in line with what I believe. :) Mostly, cuz I'm RIGHT.

[Abbey Marie]

It's not running away if the kids is taken care of. You can love someone without the need to be around them 24/7 even kids.

Actually, you said they want to be away from them 24/7:


I know a lot of woman who work to get away from their kids 24/7

And it is running away of they are doing that.

[LiberalNation]

lol, no your wrong and I'm right so there.

[LiberalNation]

And it is running away of they are doing that.

Sure, I wouldn't want to be home with a bunch of crying babies all day either.

[darin]

Sure, I wouldn't want to be home with a bunch of crying babies all day either.

Then don't start a day-care. But if you'd consider your children just 'crying babies' then you'd be an unfit mother. Really. :( I'd say, that'd mean you'd be a self-centered bitch.

However - when/if you straighten out (pun intended), and have a child, you may feel differently. (sigh)...Youth is SOOO wasted on the young.

[LiberalNation]

All my female relatives my age already have atleast one kid. I don't want one so I don't risk it. I wouldn't call that self-centered more than smart. They of course love their kids and don't consider them just crying babies even if they do work outside the home to make money. Although there is the chance I might if I had one.

[Abbey Marie]

Sure, I wouldn't want to be home with a bunch of crying babies all day either.

Moms definitely need a break. It's surely not easy , and I only had one. Nienna has the last words on this subject.

[Abbey Marie]

All my female relatives my age already have atleast one kid. I don't want one so I don't risk it. I wouldn't call that self-centered more than smart. They of course love their kids and don't consider them just crying babies even if they do work outside the home to make money. Although there is the chance I might if I had one.

If you had one, even accidentally, you most likely wouldn't feel like running away from it. At least, not most of the time. :coffee:

[darin]

All my female relatives my age already have atleast one kid. I don't want one so I don't risk it. I wouldn't call that self-centered more than smart. They of course love their kids and don't consider them just crying babies even if they do work outside the home to make money. Although there is the chance I might if I had one.

No - no - READ the reply, toots.

"IF" you'd think of your children as simply "Crying Babies"...then it'd mean you have OTHER issues. ;)

[LiberalNation]

Depends, I know what I'm about and what I'd probably do but nothings set in stone till it happens.

[LiberalNation]

"IF" you'd think of your children as simply "Crying Babies"...then it'd mean you have OTHER issues. ;)
lol missed the "if" there, love. So sue me.

[Abbey Marie]

lol missed the "if" there, love. So sue me.

Wrong party. We're not that litigious. :coffee:

[Pale Rider]

The only modern action hero who acts like a real man is James Bond, and the latest movie explains why he later acts that way. Most of the action heroes now are 'reluctant heroes' with a 'soft side.'

Don't forget my man Steven Seagal.

It's fine to speculate what you'd have done in that situation, but until you're there, it's pretty hard to say. I know that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd go down with a fight. Stopping to reload? As a gun owner, and owner of several clip fed semi autos, that would have been when I'd have made a move.

[Nienna]

Moms definitely need a break. It's surely not easy , and I only had one. Nienna has the last words on this subject.

That's where the man comes in and takes care of his woman, so that she isn't overwhelmed. That's part of his job in protecting her & providing for her. Depending on HER personality, she might need a break, or she might need interaction with an adult, maybe a little pampering (or a LOT :D). It's a husband's job to provide that for her, as well as be involved with his children, too.

But, if a woman does not want to "be at home all day with a bunch of crying babies," she shouldn't have kids. If she DOES have a kid, she needs to put aside such childish notions, and think about what the KID needs instead of what SHE wants. Hint: If a kid or a baby is crying ALL DAY, there is a HUGE problem with the WOMAN'S performance.

[glockmail]

My husband and I were talking about this. One of the witnesses to the shootings, a strong looking young man, said Cho ran out of ammo and stopped to reload the same gun (the .22) I was wondering why no one took that opportunioy to tackle him. The guy who told the tale took that time to burrow in deeper under some desks.

All you gun guys out there- wouldn't there be enough time to tackle someone who is reloading? Or is it done too quickly?

Two guns and multiple clips- could be very fast reloading. But that wouldn't have stopped me from picking up one of those chair-desk things, flinging it at the guy, then picking up a second one, holding it in front of me and going right at the little prick. The 5 or 10 seconds of distraction may have given another real man or two time to pick up his desk and do the same thing. :dunno:

What I don't understand is why the campus cops didn't storm the damn building. That's their damn job. NYC fireman stormed the WTC after a much nastier threat.

[Kathianne]

From what I've read, less today, the ONLY one that acted 'heroically' was an elderly professor that was a holocaust survivor. Every other story has been on protecting oneself. Now there were those that carried out wounded, which was brave for sure.

[Abbey Marie]

From what I've read, less today, the ONLY one that acted 'heroically' was an elderly professor that was a holocaust survivor. Every other story has been on protecting oneself. Now there were those that carried out wounded, which was brave for sure.

Perhaps it's a generational thing. :dunno:

[Kathianne]

Perhaps it's a generational thing. :dunno:

Perhaps a perspective thing? I don't know. There was a time, so I was taught, that the strong looked out for the weak. When a slight, 70 some year old man is the strongest, there may be a bit of a problem?

[glockmail]

Perhaps it's a generational thing. :dunno: Absolutely true, That's the issue. This current crop has been taught to be wussies, a direct result of the femanist manifesto.

[Abbey Marie]

Perhaps a perspective thing? I don't know. There was a time, so I was taught, that the strong looked out for the weak. When a slight, 70 some year old man is the strongest, there may be a bit of a problem?

Tom Brokaw's book The Greatest Generation may be right on the money insofar as the generation as a whole had a more heroic mindset. As for perspective, I think many of the guys on this board, and I know my own husband, would defend the weak in a heartbeat.

[Abbey Marie]

Absolutely true, That's the issue. This current crop has been taught to be wussies, a direct result of the femanist manifesto.

And other liberal causes.

[avatar4321]

Then don't start a day-care. But if you'd consider your children just 'crying babies' then you'd be an unfit mother. Really. :( I'd say, that'd mean you'd be a self-centered bitch.

However - when/if you straighten out (pun intended), and have a child, you may feel differently. (sigh)...Youth is SOOO wasted on the young.

I agree... Youth is wasted on the young. And im still young. I just wish i could go back and do more with it with the knowledge I have now.

[avatar4321]

From what I've read, less today, the ONLY one that acted 'heroically' was an elderly professor that was a holocaust survivor. Every other story has been on protecting oneself. Now there were those that carried out wounded, which was brave for sure.

I heard that too, but then most of these people are pretty young kids, and yeah 19 year olds are still kids nowadays. The fact is they werent prepared for anything like it. They've seen nothing like it before. I hope my children will understand the nature of evil and do what they can to oppose it when its found.

[avatar4321]

Tom Brokaw's book The Greatest Generation may be right on the money insofar as the generation as a whole had a more heroic mindset. As for perspective, I think many of the guys on this board, and I know my own husband, would defend the weak in a heartbeat.

The newer generations havent had to answer the same call the Greatest Generation has, but I think we have potential to do greater things. The question is will we do it.

[glockmail]

I agree... Youth is wasted on the young. And im still young. I just wish i could go back and do more with it with the knowledge I have now. That's why we have kids. I tell my son a lot about both good and bad experiences that I've had, so he won't have to waste time screwing around with the bad.

[gabosaurus]

What a wonderful, virile board!! All of you would have risked your lives to attack a crazy person armed with automatic weapons!
Get real...every damm one of you would have been under a desk.

1. An epic divorce rate that almost always bastardizes the man and leaves a single-mom raising her sons w/o a good male role model.
My parents have been married almost 30 years. My mom and dad were both exceptional role models. How many of you are divorced? For shame!

2. Dads who are still married yet can quote their favorite sports team’s statistics but can't tell you a damn thing about their kids' school grades.
I guarantee that my dad pretty much everything important that went on in the lives of my sister and I. That is because he made it that way with a long list of rules and restrictions. My dad did not care for sports, but he still took me to Dodger games.

3. "Career parents" - parents who place their earnings above the welfare of their kids and ultimately make their kids pay a horrible price of being raised in Day Care or raise themselves.
My mom and dad both worked out of necessity. Most modern families require two incomes. Both my parents were home by dinner time each night.

4. "It's all about you son" - this ideology that teaches everyone to "look out for #1" - "make sure you always take care of you" is popular vernacular these days.
My parents had two daughters. You have to take care of yourself.

>>> What is the source for this 1950-ish piece of garbage anyway?

[Nienna]

Wow what sexist viewpoints you have. No wonder it took so much fighting by the feminist movement to even get woman equal rights to men.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "sexist." I think modern feminists are some of the most sexist people out there. Modern feminists center EVERYTHING around the woman and her choices, and the men & children just get what the woman chooses to throw to them.



So men desire to dominate woman and woman should allow it and do all they can to protect the fragile male ego to keep from emasculating him no matter what her goals are, career or otherwise. Woman can lead, especially in the workplace today. If a man can't stand a strong woman that their problem not hers. Every individual has the right to strive to be what that want to be no matter the societies prejudices.

Not even close to what I was saying. I don't think most men desire to DOMINATE; I think most men have an inner urge to LEAD. Two very different things. A tyrant wants to control, to keep others down under his command. A leader, OTOH, simply wants to go first, both in good situations and bad. I think most men have both a desire to LEAD and accompanying protective instincts. If you listen to the men on this board, and their comments about leadership, they are not talking about keeping women down, they are talking about SERVING others, through action and sacrifice, through being the first to face dangers. Their protective instincts make them want to go ahead and check things out for the woman/children/victims of terror, to ensure their safety. Once they are assured that the coast is clear, men like those on this board will turn back to those under their leadership and give the thumbs-up for them to pursue whatever ambitions or dreams they choose. But for women to deny men this opportunity to serve--for them to refuse to step back and let the guys go first-- it undermines some of the very best, most admirable things about manhood.

"The fragile male ego" is such a derogatory phrase. It makes men seem weak and silly for simply wanting respect. I don't like it when people talk about men this way. What's wrong with bolstering the "male ego"? Isn't it simply affirming a man's humanity and purpose? What's wrong with making someone feel valued?

I think most men LIKE strong women. Most men WANT their women to be strong, active, courageous, intelligent, etc. It's to a man's credit if his wife possesses these qualities, and I think most men WANT their women to achieve. It's the feminists who have it wrong, asserting that, for women to be these things, they must take them away from men. It's not men who can't stand strong women; it's the feminists who can't stand strong MEN.

[darin]

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "sexist." I think modern feminists are some of the most sexist people out there. Modern feminists center EVERYTHING around the woman and her choices, and the men & children just get what the woman chooses to throw to them.




Not even close to what I was saying. I don't think most men desire to DOMINATE; I think most men have an inner urge to LEAD. Two very different things. A tyrant wants to control, to keep others down under his command. A leader, OTOH, simply wants to go first, both in good situations and bad. I think most men have both a desire to LEAD and accompanying protective instincts. If you listen to the men on this board, and their comments about leadership, they are not talking about keeping women down, they are talking about SERVING others, through action and sacrifice, through being the first to face dangers. Their protective instincts make them want to go ahead and check things out for the woman/children/victims of terror, to ensure their safety. Once they are assured that the coast is clear, men like those on this board will turn back to those under their leadership and give the thumbs-up for them to pursue whatever ambitions or dreams they choose. But for women to deny men this opportunity to serve--for them to refuse to step back and let the guys go first-- it undermines some of the very best, most admirable things about manhood.

"The fragile male ego" is such a derogatory phrase. It makes men seem weak and silly for simply wanting respect. I don't like it when people talk about men this way. What's wrong with bolstering the "male ego"? Isn't it simply affirming a man's humanity and purpose? What's wrong with making someone feel valued?

I think most men LIKE strong women. Most men WANT their women to be strong, active, courageous, intelligent, etc. It's to a man's credit if his wife possesses these qualities, and I think most men WANT their women to achieve. It's the feminists who have it wrong, asserting that, for women to be these things, they must take them away from men. It's not men who can't stand strong women; it's the feminists who can't stand strong MEN.

Nienna - you've said it well. However. Here's the rub. Libbers will NEVER take what you wrote and understand it. They will, on purpose, take what you wrote and apply it in the WORST POSSIBLE, most EXTREME circumstances in an effort to RUN...no...FLEE from truth. By their reasoning, if they can take what you say, twist it into something bad, they are justified in their loving, no...worshiping of lies. Very few will have the, excuse me, the balls, to actually UNDERSTAND. They do this on purpose, I believe, in an effort to shun ANY THOUGHT that they (Oh the THOUGHT!) could be...(gulp)...Wrong!.

[LiberalNation]

Men wanting to lead is fine. Men keeping woman from leading because of ego issues of not being able to stand a woman getting ahead of them is not and is how it turns out half the time.