The 21st Century Male Role

[betsy]

What does an emasculated man act like? Please clarify.

He panders to the radical, leftwing feminists who go far beyond wanting an equal say, and who want no part in being mommas and looking after children.

Equality isn't their agenda.

[Drea]

What EXACTLY does this man do differently throughout the day than a "real" man.

Really.

Start when he wakes up and take us through a typical day of a "liberal" man and then take us through a typical day for a "non liberal" man.

what you've said is simply ranting -- lets get the truth out there Betsy!

[kuzadd]

You liberal men are not only letting it happen...you are encouraging it to happen.

Like bees, you support the queen that would eventually cause your demise.

Geez, you make it sound like that's a bad thing.

you know caring for one's 'queen bee', could have alot of 'fringe benefits' for men.

;-) ;-) nudge, nudge

[kuzadd]

What EXACTLY does this man do differently throughout the day than a "real" man.

Really.

Start when he wakes up and take us through a typical day of a "liberal" man and then take us through a typical day for a "non liberal" man.

what you've said is simply ranting -- lets get the truth out there Betsy!

maybe the 'liberal' man wears speedo as opposed to swim trunks?

[Black Dog]

The irony is that the feminist movement is based on the lie that men were responsible for women's SO-CALLED inferior position in society. This of course, is a lie. The evolution of our society was responsible for their position. And women let it happen. As I've said before in a another thread, power was the essential factor, not gender. Men had it, and women were less likely to have the facility or the capability of attaining that power. The feminist movement found a way.

Gibberish. On the one hand you say the distribution of power is unrelated to gender, yet, on the other, acknowledge the distribution of power is divided on gender lines. If power has nothing to do with gender, why the inequality? Your own alaysis logically leads to the conclusion that gender is the factor.

[Figleaf]

Women being cast in the sexy role is negative and harmful to women actually.

I would agree when it's a stereotype or when being sexy is presented as the sole criterion for value. But as one attribute among others, sexy is positive, not negative.

Seriously, actually take a day and watch TV and see how many commercials depict women foolishly and men, keep score and you will find your premise off base, as off base as Betsy's are.

Seriously, try to actually listen to what I've said ... I did base my opinion on actual observation.

[Melanie_]

maybe the 'liberal' man wears speedo as opposed to swim trunks?

Kuzadd, you’ve inadvertently stumbled on to the biggest secret in the Feminist Manifesto! But you’ve got it backwards……. Liberal men wear trunks, the non liberal man wears a Speedo. You see, our mission as feminists is to emasculate men, and what better way to do that than to deny them their right to wear tight spandex that reveals every detail of their Wobbly Bits. And really, of all the advances that feminism has made, this has to be the most widely appreciated.

[Catchme]

The irony is that the feminist movement is based on the lie that men were responsible for women's SO-CALLED inferior position in society. This of course, is a lie. The evolution of our society was responsible for their position. And women let it happen. As I've said before in a another thread, power was the essential factor, not gender. Men had it, and women were less likely to have the facility or the capability of attaining that power. The feminist movement found a way.

Gibberish. On the one hand you say the distribution of power is unrelated to gender, yet, on the other, acknowledge the distribution of power is divided on gender lines. If power has nothing to do with gender, why the inequality? Your own alaysis logically leads to the conclusion that gender is the factor.

black dog, that is the whole thing about dominionists, they get on this nonsensical rant that has discrepancies that they cannot cognitively align, and that points to the error and fallacy in their rants/beliefs, but it still does not stop them.

[kuzadd]

maybe the 'liberal' man wears speedo as opposed to swim trunks?

Kuzadd, you’ve inadvertently stumbled on to the biggest secret in the Feminist Manifesto! But you’ve got it backwards……. Liberal men wear trunks, the non liberal man wears a Speedo. You see, our mission as feminists is to emasculate men, and what better way to do that than to deny them their right to wear tight spandex that reveals every detail of their Wobbly Bits. And really, of all the advances that feminism has made, this has to be the most widely appreciated.

LOL!!!

Continuing off topic, but fun nonetheless. Besides speedo's I can think of some other things, I prefer men, don't wear , or sometimes, please keep your shirt on!!! Aaargh!

[betsy]

The irony is that the feminist movement is based on the lie that men were responsible for women's SO-CALLED inferior position in society. This of course, is a lie. The evolution of our society was responsible for their position. And women let it happen. As I've said before in a another thread, power was the essential factor, not gender. Men had it, and women were less likely to have the facility or the capability of attaining that power. The feminist movement found a way.

Gibberish. On the one hand you say the distribution of power is unrelated to gender, yet, on the other, acknowledge the distribution of power is divided on gender lines. If power has nothing to do with gender, why the inequality? Your own alaysis logically leads to the conclusion that gender is the factor.

We can't keep discussing these issues when logic seems beyond your scope.

Hints: Men have power does not equal ONLY MEN HAVE POWER. Does not equal men have power BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN. Does not equal ALL MEN HAVE POWER. Does not equal NO WOMEN HAVE POWER.

[betsy]

You liberal men are not only letting it happen...you are encouraging it to happen.

Like bees, you support the queen that would eventually cause your demise.

Geez, you make it sound like that's a bad thing.

you know caring for one's 'queen bee', could have alot of 'fringe benefits' for men.

;-) ;-) nudge, nudge

So, men have to pander to women to have these "fringe benefits?" Only emasculated men to testosterone-enhanced women.

;-) ;-) nudge, nudge

[runningdog]

Women being cast in the sexy role is negative and harmful to women actually.

I would agree when it's a stereotype or when being sexy is presented as the sole criterion for value. But as one attribute among others, sexy is positive, not negative.

Seriously, actually take a day and watch TV and see how many commercials depict women foolishly and men, keep score and you will find your premise off base, as off base as Betsy's are.

Seriously, try to actually listen to what I've said ... I did base my opinion on actual observation.

another great topic started by betsy. In other news, Prime Minister Steven Harper has said that in order to show support to the Afgani people, all members (including Bev Oda) will be required to wear blue "Canadas' New Government" speedos during question period for the month of September. Harpers' handlers are currently looking for a vest that the PM can wear to "compliment" his amazing physique.

When asked why, Harper was heard to say, "If they are focused on me and my "New Government" issued speedoes, they will not be focused on other, less important issues."

[White Doors]

I think there may be something to what Betsy is saying, partially anyway.

Consider advertisements: they very often include a 'humorous' reference to male incompetence, or they use a male or maleness as the butt of their wit.

Betsy, is, way off base in her erroneous gender baiting. August pointed out some reasons why s/he is.

And I can point out to any number of commercials that depict women in a negative light, in as much, or more, as any depicting men suchly. Try watching TV one day and keep track eh?! Instead of listening to the absolute hogwash that is being distributed by the Dominionists.

Oh. my. god.

you really are losing it aren't you?

It's comical to see.

[kuzadd]

So, men have to pander to women to have these "fringe benefits?" Only emasculated men to testosterone-enhanced women.

;-) ;-) nudge, nudge

Well unless the man is simply intending to rape his woman,(take what he wants) he dam well better be nice!

and that seems to be what you are inferring, no , subservience of woman to a dominant male???

Can I assume you like the S & M style of sexual relations???

rofl!!!!!!!

[Army Guy]

that is the whole thing about dominionists, they get on this nonsensical rant that has discrepancies that they cannot cognitively align, and that points to the error and fallacy in their rants/beliefs, but it still does not stop them.

This sure sounds like the horse calling the kettle black...who would have guessed Catchme a dominionist...

I got one question does that title come with a special uniform...

[Black Dog]

We can't keep discussing these issues when logic seems beyond your scope.

Hints: Men have power does not equal ONLY MEN HAVE POWER. Does not equal men have power BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN. Does not equal ALL MEN HAVE POWER. Does not equal NO WOMEN HAVE POWER.

It's pretty safe to say that, historically, power has tended to lie with males. Hell, you acknowledge as much:

Men had (power), and women were less likely to have the facility or the capability of attaining that power.

Clearly there's some correlation between power distribution and gender. So what's the connection?

[betsy]

We can't keep discussing these issues when logic seems beyond your scope.

Hints: Men have power does not equal ONLY MEN HAVE POWER. Does not equal men have power BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN. Does not equal ALL MEN HAVE POWER. Does not equal NO WOMEN HAVE POWER.

It's pretty safe to say that, historically, power has tended to lie with males. Hell, you acknowledge as much:

Men had (power), and women were less likely to have the facility or the capability of attaining that power.

Clearly there's some correlation between power distribution and gender. So what's the connection?

It may be clear to you....but it's not clear logically.

If it was a gender co-relation, most men would have power. And virtually no women would.

There are only a small proportion of men who have power. There is an even smaller proportion of women who have power.

Power is attained by skill, ability, cunning, ambition, opportunity, timing, and no small amount of luck!

Apparently more men have these attributes than do women. Gender is not a factor for any of those characteristics.

Or are you saying it is?

[Black Dog]

If it was a gender co-relation, most men would have power. And virtually no women would.

There are only a small proportion of men who have power. There is an even smaller proportion of women who have power.

That's not logical. If there's a correlation between males and power, it does not follow that all or most men would have power. It's not absolute. Rather, those that have power would tend to be men. You cannot deny that, historically, men have had more power and more access to power than women. You can't deny it because you've already conceded that point. Clearly gender is a factor.

[betsy]

If it was a gender co-relation, most men would have power. And virtually no women would.

There are only a small proportion of men who have power. There is an even smaller proportion of women who have power.

That's not logical. If there's a correlation between males and power, it does not follow that all or most men would have power. It's not absolute. Rather, those that have power would tend to be men. You cannot deny that, historically, men have had more power and more access to power than women. You can't deny it because you've already conceded that point. Clearly gender is a factor.

It is the ability, ie. skill, intelligence, timing, among many others - that constitute the requirements for power.

All these qualities are independent of gender. Are they not? If they are not, then clearly men have them in greater abundance than women. Perhaps these qualities also constitute superiority. We'll leave that up to you.

The fact is, that historically, men hold power to a greater extent than women. But you cannot conclude from that that gender is the reason unless you concede that the male gender has greater abilities....at least as far as attaining power is concerned.

If that is the case, women will gain power only when and if men let them. And that's where we are now. Liberal men have willingly let themselves be emasculated, for their own liberal reasons. The result, probably unbeknown to them, is the abdication of power.

If those qualities required for power are independent of gender, those in power attain their power without reference to gender. If they are dependent on gender, then men are clearly superior in their abilities vis-a-vis power. You can't have it both ways.

To the extent that men have these qualities in more abundance than women, you might consider it a GENDER BIAS. But there's nothing you can do about that. It's the way it is. If it's a gender bias, it's a gender bias! Just like breasts or penises.

It's the ability of the person that makes power attainable. Not gender.

[betsy]

So, men have to pander to women to have these "fringe benefits?" Only emasculated men to testosterone-enhanced women.

;-) ;-) nudge, nudge

Well unless the man is simply intending to rape his woman,(take what he wants) he dam well better be nice!

and that seems to be what you are inferring, no , subservience of woman to a dominant male???

Can I assume you like the S & M style of sexual relations???

rofl!!!!!!!

What????

Do you have issues with your sexual orientation? Lol!

Btw, sex is not the only item in a relationship.

You seem to fall into the category of those who think MEN'S BRAINS RESIDE SOMEWHERE BELOW THEIR NAVEL. That put you smack in the middle of radical feminism. N'est-ce pas?

[Black Dog]

It is the ability, ie. skill, intelligence, timing, among many others - that constitute the requirements for power.

Among many others. Does not exclude gender.

The fact is, that historically, men hold power to a greater extent than women. But you cannot conclude from that that gender is the reason unless you concede that the male gender has greater abilities....at least as far as attaining power is concerned.

That's assuming that power is distributed according to ability. That's not always the case, not by a longshot. Also, I have never claimed gender is the sole factor, but it is a factor. You are claiming its not on the radar, which is simply ridiculous.

[kuzadd]

What????

Do you have issues with your sexual orientation? Lol!

Btw, sex is not the only item in a relationship.

You seem to fall into the category of those who think MEN'S BRAINS RESIDE SOMEWHERE BELOW THEIR NAVEL. That put you smack in the middle of radical feminism. N'est-ce pas?

actually, it would be more accurate, to proclaim that is the way you think,"MEN'S BRAINS RESIDE SOMEWHERE BELOW THEIR NAVEL", since you seem to imply men should dominate women cause they have a male sex organ and thereby, they are entitled.

My husband of more then 20yrs is quite comfortable and happy, in our long term committed marriage devoid of male dominance, but based on equality!

and no religion involved either!

[betsy]

What????

Do you have issues with your sexual orientation? Lol!

Btw, sex is not the only item in a relationship.

You seem to fall into the category of those who think MEN'S BRAINS RESIDE SOMEWHERE BELOW THEIR NAVEL. That put you smack in the middle of radical feminism. N'est-ce pas?

actually, it would be more accurate, to proclaim that is the way you think,"MEN'S BRAINS RESIDE SOMEWHERE BELOW THEIR NAVEL", since you seem to imply men should dominate women cause they have a male sex organ and thereby, they are entitled.

My husband of more then 20yrs is quite comfortable and happy, in our long term committed marriage devoid of male dominance, but based on equality!

and no religion involved either!

Whhhaaaat? Where on earth did you get that?

<blink>

Ha-ha-ha....I get it....ha-ha-ha...we're not on the same page at all!

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

Anyway, I'm happy for you and your husband. 20 years is tough to survive in this day and age. Me and my husband had also been together practically the same lenght of time as yours. Both of us believing it is a till-death-do-us-part commitment, no matter what. Cheers!

[Catchme]

There has been no emmasculation of men Betsy no matter how much you insist.

[betsy]

There has been no emmasculation of men Betsy no matter how much you insist.

Is that all you have to say?

Let me hear YOUR OWN VIEW then (not Blackdog's or August's or Peter's or anybody else's).