Not just an attack on men, though that's probably how it's intended. It is really an attack on humanity as a whole; by way of the divine distinction between male and female, and the role that this distinction serves in the formation of marriage and family and society.
No. Only the self-inflicted war on effort and integrity.
What people are given to misinterpret as 'war' is merely the cumulative effect of a historical process that operates interdependently at several different levels, whereby phenomena we recognise as 'current events' are driven by generational, ideological inertia in turn lent impetus by broad shifts in awareness that occur across significant eras. That these surface ripples are mistaken for conflict rather than equilibrium (or even feedback) testifies to personal bias. What the majority understand as 'progression' is no more than projection of self-interest, as if to believe that the scales could be tipped via ego alone.
Of those men who believe themselves to be thus engaged in said 'war', I can only suggest that in believing such, they align themselves, however unwittingly, with the one-dimensional, brainless femiclowns they might otherwise have managed to undermine. It's a little disheartening, if expected. Still, the learning curve allows for self-delusion.
Let me ask something very specific then. Do you see the attempts by some feminists to create a genderless world as an attack on men?
If the effort is to make the world "genderless" then how is it an attack on just men?
Although is not exclusively an attack on men, it is an attack nevertheless. Furthermore, the rhetoric of such persons can at times be hostile to men specifically.
Ding dong dell
You know what's in the well!!! :lamo
This is plainly untrue. Effort and integrity don't presuppose positivity, whether assumed in advance or not.I disagree. I think that effort and integrity are functions of being situated such that one can be satisfied in the fulfillment of ones reasonable desires.
These are givens. Who suggests otherwise?For instance, a man who is hungry is much more likely to steal than one who is well fed. I think there have been efforts by some intellectuals that have resulted in men and women suppressing feelings that have led to neurotic behavior and is destroying the social fabric of society. Although in the ultimate scheme, things do level out. But that does not mean that one should not endeavor to correct localized disturbances.
Sorry but as a white man I don't see it. As a white man I get to earn more money than any other demographic, I am over represented by other white men at every level of government, and I am over represented in the leadership of the vast majority of companies and organizations.
If you have experienced racist attitudes towards yourself, but never witnessed it towards others, then frankly it sounds to me like you might be too self absorbed to see it.
The flaw in your position is that it assumes that without such programs there would be a pure meritocracy. If that was so I would agree with you. But that simply is not the case. The problem is that because of such past and present discrimination, there is a power structure in place that is quite frankly dominated by white males, some of whom that discriminate based on race.
Oh please. The white male is still in the safest condition by far. The fact that all levels of government have a few programs here or there which provide specific benefit to minorities should not prevent you from considering how relatively untouched the white male is.
I don't have a problem with providing benefits to others I have a problem when those benefits specifically discriminate against someone else in the process. The racial attitude of some of you towards white men is appalling, just because there are a lot of white men in power positions doesn't make it okay to discriminate against those who are not, you are condoning something that if done towards any minority you would stand vehemently against.
I could be self absorbed or I could just be a young person who lives in an extremely liberal area where there is no visible racism. You do realize that it's not all that rampant in many areas of US but nice of you to judge me anyways.
I am a white man. I don't hold pity toward our kind, nor do I have animosity toward my own kind. I'm sorry, I just don't identify whatsoever with this stance.
I was looking for some background information on another topic when I stumbled across a website. I thought it was very interesting. Here's the link
Mission Statement | Women for Men
So what do you think? Is there a war going on against masculinity in the United States?
Sorry but I think that's ridiculous. Like I've said before, every group has extremists and I'm sure there are some individuals that use hateful language but they don't represent the majority. Overall the evolution of what defines a man as a man I see as a deeply positive thing and of great benefit to men in general.
On purpose, no. But the way that our education system is designed by women for the way that women learn, administrated largely by women, and then taught by women, has resulted in a system that systematically disadvantages boys.
The problem is that feminists have had far too much influence on the definition of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. Men have a tendency to want to project a sense of confidence, and women have a tendency to be attracted to men that project such confidence. Although not exclusively, one way in which men tend to demonstrate such confidence is by demonstrating that they have the ability to provide a woman with the things that she needs and desires. Women have a tendency to be attracted to such men. That is why it is not uncommon to see very rich old men, who would otherwise not be able to attract young beautiful women, indeed have such women as partners. Feminists condemn such tendencies as patriarchal and macho, and therefore unacceptable. By doing so they have simply created an environment that encourages the development of various types of neurosis and insecurity because people have to suppress how they naturally feel in order to conform to the feminist notions of how men and women should relate. These feelings of frustration result in an overall sense of unhappiness and pain that encourages the development of destructive tendencies. These destructive tendencies encourage people to want to destroy and tear down others. The symptom of that is that people now look up to people who tear down others. Therefore Simon Cowell of American Idol is so popular. And it helps explain why politicians who promise to destroy the enemy are more popular than those who advocate finding common ground with those with whom we may have differences.
Rather silly use of gender roles. Many men tend to follow a strong, confident leader- it is a HUMAN trait to be attracted to leadership types- not a gender trait. Though it has always made me chuckle that a hard driving female is a ball buster and a hard driving man is confident...
Rich old men attract far more than women... but you seem intent on making this a gender issue as well.
I disagree. I know personally I never experienced the desire to have a rich old woman. On the other hand I hear young women talk all the time about how they would like to find a rich old man.That old rich men can go through a series of trophy wives is more about our male oriented society than 'nature'.
Well off women can have pool boys and such, but because a sexual woman is a slut while a sexual man is a stud, she doesn't advertise her boy toy with court side seat dates...
But the best laugh on all of this is blaming feminists for the HUMAN rather sad trait of loving a good train wreck. been part and parcel of our species since the very beginning. Cruelty is not a recent development.
Your last line is the best line.... soo out of the strike zone... To say politicians who promise the destruction of an enemy are like feminists and those politicians who seek a common ground are not.... sooooo BushII over heated war talk is feminist and Obama wanting to open a dialogue with Iran is macho???
This is plainly untrue. Effort and integrity don't presuppose positivity, whether assumed in advance or not.
These are givens. Who suggests otherwise?
To the contrary, integrity's more notable, one's character having been impugned or questioned, not flattered (where no such motive would exist). Likewise for effort.No it is true. While the qualities of effort and integrity are not absolutely dependent on positivity, positivity creates an environment that is more conducive to the manifestation of effort and integrity. That's how people like Tony Robbins make their money. They try to impart a sense of positivity into the minds of their audience.
It demonstrates that the lack of a positive environment, in this case the state of hunger, can contribute to a decline in integrity. A person is more likely to steal when he is hungry, which is a manifestation of the lack of integrity.
There is nothing silly about what I said. Although it is a human trait in general to be attracted to leadership, that is different from the conjugal attraction that women have for men who project a sense of confidence and can provide the necessities and luxuries they desire. In general, these qualities simply don't rank as high on men's priorities as they do women. In fact they can be negatives for women, and your hard driving female example is evidence of this. We are discussing conjugal relationships so what you are saying is irrelevant, unless of course the man is gay. I disagree. I know personally I never experienced the desire to have a rich old woman. On the other hand I hear young women talk all the time about how they would like to find a rich old man. Actually I think it's more that there is a difference in the effects of testosterone and estrogen that accounts for that. But that is my opinion. I didn't say they are solely responsible. I'm saying they have contributed to a rise in the frustration that leads to such behavior. You don't understand what was said. Again, what I said was that the efforts of feminists to redefine what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman have contributed to the rise in frustration that leads that have made such persons more attractive to voters.
To the contrary, integrity's more notable, one's character having been impugned or questioned, not flattered (where no such motive would exist). Likewise for effort.
Again, this relates to my original post how, exactly?
No. Only the self-inflicted war on effort and integrity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?