The 21st Century Male Role

[betsy]

Betsy cannot speak for men, nor can Mrs Levant, or any other woman.

Same that this blasted "Women's Movement" cannot purport to speak for all women!

[betsy]

Ah yes, now I understand where you are coming from Betsy. It's not gender roles you have an issue with -- its our courts and their treatment of men as husbands and fathers...

I too agree that divorce and custody laws are biased toward women. Someone in my own family is struggling with this right now and it ain't pretty.

The courts ARE biased toward women -- but what can people (regular people like you and me) do?

I am willing to stand up in court for my brother but what good will it do? I biased already as he is my kin -- so the judge is unlikely to take my opinion as fact.

His ex-bitch accused him of child abuse and now has custody of the child. Never mind that he didn't do it, never mind that her two older children were taken away (not his kids) because she abused them...never mind that she dated (RCMP are aware of this I saw the transcripts) a convicted pedophile and even left the child with him while she worked!

Sheesh and I wasn't even gonna spill it when I first started this post...

Drea, read that PBS article I just posted. Oh btw, I didn't realize they've actually changed the name of the movement from Feminist to Women.

[Drea]

I did read it.

Has nothing to do with gender roles at all.

Has everything to do with a biased court system and those who would see it continue on that path (rather than look at it from an "equality" point of view.)

Until men have equal rights in divorce and custody cases, we won't have true gender equality.

[betsy]

My life partner and I are going to celebrate 28 years together this fall. He is 6'7" and most men consider him to be a 'manly man' kinda guy. Definitely nothing effeminate about him and his still bulging muscles from working hard not working out--not that white collar men do not need to work out and should not be considered "effeminate" for doing so-- yet he self identifies as a feminist. He would not have us other than equals, nor would he have his daughters treated like wantwit object in a submissive position. Nor would he want to be responsible for my actions as an individual, he does not live in my skin, I do.

It is not about the physical looks either, Catchme.

A man who stands only 4 feet tall and weighing 100 lbs is not less of a man than a hulking wrestler. Even if the man is what some would describe as "effeminate" in some ways....I don't think of him any less.

That is not the point of my issue. I just want to be very clear on that.

It is more about the liberal man's attitude of acceptance....resignation....appeasement ....for whatever reasons.

You believe it is for equality. A lot of women believe it is for equality. A lot of men believe it is for equality.

Honorable and noble intentions. Unfortunately, it is not for equality.

[betsy]

Kuzadd and Catchme,

The natural instinct of men to protect women, it is still there in most men.

I had experienced these protective instincts of men on several occasions over the years. My husband had shown me how protective he can be towards me....and towards any female in distress.

If we are happy with our men, isn't it all the more reason that we should want to protect them too?

[Drea]

It is more about the liberal man's attitude of acceptance....resignation....appeasement ....for whatever reasons.

You believe it is for equality. A lot of women believe it is for equality. A lot of men believe it is for equality.

Honorable and noble intentions. Unfortunately, it is not for equality.

Acceptance of what?

Resignation of what?

Appeasement to what?

I am not understanding what you are getting at Betsy. Men today are not emmasculated. I agree that our divorce courts are unfair, but all in all I don't see men getting a bum rap. Liberal or not.

Please be specific -- I really mean I don't know what you are getting at.

[geoffrey]

I think I agree with Drea, at least I don't feel emasulated... but I suppose one wouldn't...

That said, I think the "women's rights" movement has gone so far that they now are in a much more privledged position than men... it's not about equality but about activism now. Perhaps that's the confusion.

[betsy]

Ah yes, now I understand where you are coming from Betsy. It's not gender roles you have an issue with -- its our courts and their treatment of men as husbands and fathers...

The discussion about non-gender roles was about THE ATTAINMENT OF POWER....which I admit got off in a tangent.

But the issue here is the EMASCULATION of men, which is a discussion of gender roles! How can it be anything else?

Laws and legislations are just a reflection of the changes that are happening in our society. Some of those changes are resulting in the emasculation of men.

If you change an element in society, you change society. So if you change the dominant element in society, you can't help but make drastic changes to that society.

Now we see those changes in courts, in the schools, etc..,

[betsy]

I think I agree with Drea, at least I don't feel emasulated... but I suppose one wouldn't...

What happens when you put a frog in warm water, then bring it slowly to a boil? The frog doesn't know what's happening to him until it's too late. In fact, he enjoyed the warm water at the beginning.

[Black Dog]

betsy sez:

It's assuming that the attainment of power is distributed according to the ability to attain power. How elementary can it be?

Elementary is a good word for such a ridiculously simplistic anaylysis. Basically you're saying women don't have power becaus ethey aren't good enough to acheive it. This completely ignores historical realities that have privileged males over females soley on the basis of gender (for example, traditional patrilineal inheritance systems). Not to mentuion I have to wonder why you think your own gender is so damned inferior.

[Drea]

Black Dog -- it's brainwashing.

She has obviously been brainwashed into believing she (and all other women) don't have the wherewithall to think for themselves and/or be in power positions.

She won't agree with this -- but it's clear that she believes women are inferior to men.

We are equal but different. Women will always "primp" in order to look good for men. Men will always feel "protective" of women. These traits are natural. No one is trying to change nature, just the unnaturalness of the imbalance of power that has existed for centuries.

[betsy]

betsy sez:

It's assuming that the attainment of power is distributed according to the ability to attain power. How elementary can it be?

Elementary is a good word for such a ridiculously simplistic anaylysis. Basically you're saying women don't have power becaus ethey aren't good enough to acheive it. This completely ignores historical realities that have privileged males over females soley on the basis of gender (for example, traditional patrilineal inheritance systems). Not to mentuion I have to wonder why you think your own gender is so damned inferior.

You say:

"Basically you're saying women don't have power becaus ethey aren't good enough to acheive it."

Ironically, it's you that is saying that women aren't good enough, by suggesting it's gender that decides whether power is achievable by any individual and, at the same time, acknowledging that men have always been in power. Anyway, read on.

Again your argument is circular. You're saying that historically men have attained power as a privilege of their gender. On what do you base this contention? You're asking us to believe your conclusions on the basis of a premise that is neither proven nor probable. The weight of the evidence in fact would lead a logical person to conclude that particular qualities (characteristics) combine in individuals that allow them to attain power - to be potential leaders, if you will. Only very few men, and even fewer women, have this fortunate combination in their personality structure.

Gender becomes a factor only in the mind that wants it to be one. If you didn't imagine that gender was involved, the pathetic defence of the feminist mindset - their contention that man is the source of all evil - would be untenable.

Furthermore, if you insist, as you do (now at least), that gender is the factor that has allowed men throughout history to be in control, and it is control that this is all about, then you must have concluded that males are superior. Not me.

History has not conspired against women. That's a figment of the mind of feminists and their followers. History is neutral. Our society has evolved under the guidance of its leaders and according to its requirements and preferences. Because those factors don't appeal to liberals at the beginning of the 21st Century doesn't mean they didn't shape our society. It only means that those same liberals wish it wasn't so.

[betsy]

Black Dog -- it's brainwashing.

She has obviously been brainwashed into believing she (and all other women) don't have the wherewithall to think for themselves and/or be in power positions.

Since you have agreed with B. Dog, you are the one who agrees that women are inferior.

THINK, GIRL! Think what you're agreeing to before you quote someone else's idea. Just because he's a man doesn't mean he's right.

She won't agree with this -- but it's clear that she believes women are inferior to men.

Of course I won't agree. I believe that a lot of women have the qualities needed to gain positions of power. And I also believe that a lot of men don't have those attributes. (Maybe that's what you mean by equal but different!!!)

Anyway, where are you running with this? Scared??

We are equal but different.

This is a contradictory meaningless platitude (you can't be at the same time equal and not equal). No wonder it was abandoned as a slogan of the women's movement...long ago.

[Drea]

Since you have agreed with B. Dog, you are the one who agrees that women are inferior.

THINK, GIRL! Think what you're agreeing to before you quote someone else's idea. Just because he's a man doesn't mean he's right.

So agreeing with a man makes me inferior in your mind Besty? NO WONDER you feel worthless you poor thing! You've been agreeing with he-man men all along! (/sarcasm)

Just because Black Dog is a man does not mean he is wrong.

Neither myself nor Black Dog think women are inferior. I don't know how you could glean that out of this thread...

Of course I won't agree. I believe that a lot of women have the qualities needed to gain positions of power. And I also believe that a lot of men don't have those attributes. (Maybe that's what you mean by equal but different!!!)

Anyway, where are you running with this? Scared??

What would I possibly be scared of? That's just silly.

Throughout history -- indeed up to a few generations ago -- women were NOT ALLOWED to vote or participate in decision making outside of their role as wives and mothers (and then their "power" was very limited). Of course a few (Catherine the Great for example) had power, but the majority did not.

This is a contradictory meaningless platitude (you can't be at the same time equal and not equal). No wonder it was abandoned as a slogan of the women's movement...long ago.

I know you consider yourself unequal. But that is not my problem. I consider myself equal in all regards.

It has only been 2 or 3 generations since women began attaining autonomy. In 2 or 3 more generations we will wonder at the attitude of our ancestors and why they kept women "in the dark" for so long.

Cheer up Betsy -- and don't let anyone tell you that you are worth less because you are female.

[Catchme]

Men primp, and always have, to draw women's attention.

Women have ALWAYS worried and felt protective of their male partners and male off spring.

Women who are self loathing enough to feel they are inferior to men are more than brainwashed.

This Dominionist false rhetoric of "male" supremacy rights is nothing more than a bid for continued female slavery.

[Black Dog]

Ironically, it's you that is saying that women aren't good enough, by suggesting it's gender that decides whether power is achievable by any individual and, at the same time, acknowledging that men have always been in power

I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. Hell, I'm not even sure you understand what you're trying to say.

Look. It's pretty simple. You are saying attainment of power depends soley on ability. You concede women have historically lagged in the power department. Ergo, by your logic, women are inferior.

My theory is different: it states that, historically, power has been distributed (in part) on the basis of gender. Thus, women not having power is not a refelection of their abilities, but only the fact that they are women. Where's the irony?

Again your argument is circular. You're saying that historically men have attained power as a privilege of their gender. On what do you base this contention?

Uh...history?

You're asking us to believe your conclusions on the basis of a premise that is neither proven nor probable.

You've already acknowledged the correlation between power and gender. Now, obviously correlation does not equal causation, but there's strong historical evidence to suggest that men have been privileged on the basis of gender. There's even strong contemporary examples as well. Unless of course you think that the widespread and institutional oppression of women in places like the Middle East, for example, is due to women lacking the right stuff to be successful.

The weight of the evidence in fact would lead a logical person to conclude that particular qualities (characteristics) combine in individuals that allow them to attain power - to be potential leaders, if you will. Only very few men, and even fewer women, have this fortunate combination in their personality structure.

Ah, I see now: you think power strictly means political or economic power on a large scale.

Gender becomes a factor only in the mind that wants it to be one.

Whoah, man, that's, like, so deep. But hey, why don't you go to Afghanistan and tell some women who's getting stoned to death for showing her face that gender is all in her head.

If you didn't imagine that gender was involved, the pathetic defence of the feminist mindset - their contention that man is the source of all evil - would be untenable.

I'd be hard pressed to find any feminist that states men are the source of all evil.

Furthermore, if you insist, as you do (now at least), that gender is the factor that has allowed men throughout history to be in control, and it is control that this is all about, then you must have concluded that males are superior. Not me.

Again: no. gender based power imbalances, by definition, are not a reflection of anyone's abilities.

History has not conspired against women. That's a figment of the mind of feminists and their followers. History is neutral.

Meaningless jabber.

Our society has evolved under the guidance of its leaders and according to its requirements and preferences.

One of which would be a preference for males. Boo-yah!

Because those factors don't appeal to liberals at the beginning of the 21st Century doesn't mean they didn't shape our society. It only means that those same liberals wish it wasn't so.

Ah, see the difference here is that I recognize the often arbitrary nature of gender discrimination, while you seem to think possesion of a vagina is a character flaw.

[moderateamericain]

we sort of had a thread somewhat like this in regards to the movie 300. Men fall into two categories for me. Men who embrace things that have always been regarded as "Manly" activities and those who dont. Nobody chooses for you whether or not you are going to be a traditional head of the house hold or not. That is established in the relationship by YOUR actions. Do I believe women should be pushed down under the thumb of men, absolutley not. Quite the opposite, to me, a man should glorify his wife and in turn a wife should respect her husband. Its about respect not who has control. So in a word the more you honor your wife and respect her the more manly you are. Most men who treat there wives/GF badly dont have any respect for themselves. This is one reason i believe every male should have mandatory military service. To teach them self respect.

[betsy]

I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. Hell...

Hell is right. It's up to you to express what you're saying. It's not up to me. The fact is you're not saying what you think you're saying. but you might be saying what you think you're saying now, later. Who knows. Apparently not you.

It's pretty simple. You are saying attainment of power depends soley on ability. You concede women have historically lagged in the power department. Ergo, by your logic, women are inferior.

The inferiority of women can't be inferred from their lack of participation in positions of power. All that can be logically concluded is that women have not exercised their abilities in attaining power to the same extent as men. One might consider the possibility that inferiority is the reason women have been less inclined to attain power, but one would be only guessing - stabbing in the dark so to speak. One might more logically assume, as I have stated, "The weight of the evidence in fact would lead a logical person to conclude that particular qualities (characteristics) combine in individuals that allow them to attain power - to be potential leaders, if you will. Only very few men, and even fewer women , have this fortunate combination in their personality structure." That seems to me to suggest that a few men and women are superior in their ability to attain power than the rest of us - no more, no less. Ergo what?? Complicated? I don't think so.

My theory is different: it states that, historically, power has been distributed (in part) on the basis of gender. Thus, women not having power is not a refelection of their abilities, but only the fact that they are women. Where's the irony?

I'll say. Your theory is definitely different... than mine, I mean. lol

Again, I say, gender doesn't determine an individual's ability. Our leaders, men and women, have special skills. Gender is not a skill. Surely you don't really mean that "women not having power is not a refelection of their abilities, but only the fact that they are women." Sounds like a gender-based discrimination to me. Okay, I'll be fair. I know what you mean (see below), but of course, you're wrong.

Uh...history?

I can only repeat, "Again your argument is circular. You're saying that historically men have attained power as a privilege of their gender. On what do you base this contention? You're asking us to believe your conclusions on the basis of a premise that is neither proven nor probable." You haven't proven, or even given evidence that your premise is true. All you've done is insist, and I quote, "...there's strong historical evidence to suggest that men have been privileged on the basis of gender. There's even strong contemporary examples as well. Unless of course you think that the widespread and institutional oppression of women in places like the Middle East, for example, is due to women lacking the right stuff to be successful." I suppose the widespread dominance of males over females, in your theory, is equal to the dominance of men in leadership roles. Even if it were true, you would have to prove that oppression is a quality that would enhance the possibility of attaining power and you would then be left defending a very narrow definition of power and attempting to apply that definition to all forms of power from benign and altruistic to dictatorial and fascist. Anyway, it's a moot point because bullying dominance is the complete antithesis of the type of power we're discussing, that attained by means of ability.

You've already acknowledged the correlation between power and gender...

Actually, no, I don't think I have. But if you mean by a correlation that there are more males than females in positions of power, I certainly haven't and wouldn't deny it. Or do you mean as the amount of power increases, so do the number of men? Whatever you're getting at, I haven't acknowledged it but I might be persuaded to agree with you if knew what you were talking about, and why. Anyway, as I think you rightly pointed out, a correlation doesn't necessarily mean cause and effect.

Ah, I see now: you think power strictly means political or economic power on a large scale.

Sorry, I lost the reference for this, but let me guess. You want us to get into personal relationships, spouses inability to deal with each other and probably themselves, custody battles and the lot. Spare me. Take it up with Drea or Kuzadd or whoever.

Whoah, man, that's, like, so deep. But hey, why don't you go to Afghanistan and tell some women who's getting stoned to death for showing her face that gender is all in her head.

Apparently a little too deep for you to get the significance. But we can't keep going over the same issues just because you have limited focus. The liberal mind does have difficulty dealing with facts, or even with fiction in any consistent way. Looks like you possess the liberal mind, B. Dog.

If you didn't imagine that gender was involved, the pathetic defence of the feminist mindset - their contention that man is the source of all evil - would be untenable.

I'd be hard pressed to find any feminist that states men are the source of all evil.

Keep looking. The truth comes to those who seek it.

Again: no. gender based power imbalances, by definition, are not a reflection of anyone's abilities.

And again he circles. You attempt, I think, to prove that power is gender based, and at the same time, in an attempt to prove it, you make the assumption that power is gender based.

History has not conspired against women. That's a figment of the mind of feminists and their followers. History is neutral.

Meaningless jabber.

Whatever. But history is neutral. It's just the evidence.

Our society has evolved under the guidance of its leaders and according to its requirements and preferences.

And you reply, cleverly:

One of which would be a preference for males. Boo-yah!

Societies develop according to their needs and preferences. That you don't approve is irrelevent. If a society wants men in control, hunting, fishing, etc. and women looking after the kids, goats and garden, that's what society gets. If a society wants women in control, and looking after the kids, goats and garden, and men hunting, fishing, etc., then that's what society will get. Do you think that's not what's happening today?

Deal with it.

[betsy]

Another area where men have been taking a beating is the divorce court, who usually gets the kids? The mom. The dad is allowed to see them and pay for them, but not raise them.

Yes. A very significant point and another symptom of the serious problem society faces.

[Catchme]

People who believe what betsy is trying to espouse ad naseum, leave out the message that men get to rule cause God said so.

[betsy]

People who believe what betsy is trying to espouse ad naseum, leave out the message that men get to rule cause God said so.

Sounds like a drive-by shooting! But you forgot your gun.

Catchme if you can.

[betsy]

Drea and Catchme:

Speaking of "brainwash"....

At least I have shown how firmly I stand by my aruguments....and have supported my arguments in detailed explanations.

Whereas those of you who have the gall to call me brainwashed have been spouting the incantations of radical feminists, ad nauseum. I swear you two are reading from the same book!

You are clearly of one mind! Too bad you have to share it!

[Drea]

Ok Betsy... really tryin' hard to understand your message here...

so you are saying

1. Historically women have never had any power and only few men ever get any "big" power.

2. It is the fault of women that they do not attain power. No one told them they couldn't have it, they didn't want it.

3. If men and women think one another should have equal power then they have "liberal" minds and are therefore flawed.

I spoke to both my hubby and my bro about this (after all as a little woman I don't know anything so I consulted them --aren't I a good girl? )

Both of them believe men and women are equal but different (ooOoOOoo) and they are glad of it. Wink wink nudge nudge.

Both of them agree that men don't know where they stand today. They don't know whether to say "ma'am" or "miss". (Not much of a dilema tho as it doesn't cause them too much stress day to day)

They both believe in equal pay for equal work. They both believe that small physical stature can be a detriment in some jobs making those jobs less attractive to most women and as a result few women are able to do them well (because of their stature not their gender). Prison guards, firefighters, wrestlers all were part of the conversation.

They both believe that in a few more generations we will treat one another as equals across the board in all manners of life from raising children to earning the paycheque.

Both believe that there will be more women CEOs, etc.

My brother's boss is a woman and he thinks she's just the best. She is fair and always asks for the opinions of everyone on staff.

We should celebrate and appreciate our differences. I know my hubby and bro still like looking at an attractive woman and I still like looking at an attractive man.

This does not mean they want to "lord" over pretty girls, nor does it mean I want to be "ruled" by a goodlooking man.

Men and women are partners and should treat one another as such. One should never have more power than the other.

[betsy]

Ok Betsy... really tryin' hard to understand your message here...

so you are saying

1. Historically women have never had any power and only few men ever get any "big" power.

2. It is the fault of women that they do not attain power. No one told them they couldn't have it, they didn't want it.

3. If men and women think one another should have equal power then they have "liberal" minds and are therefore flawed.

Well, if that's what you managed to understand from all that's been said....point by point....day after day....then what's the point of talking to you? You couldn't be farther from an understanding of the discussion if you'd been on another planet.

Oh boy.....

Both of them believe men and women are equal but different (ooOoOOoo) and they are glad of it. Wink wink nudge nudge.

Both of them agree that men don't know where they stand today. They don't know whether to say "ma'am" or "miss". (Not much of a dilema tho as it doesn't cause them too much stress day to day)

Maybe your husband and brother know you too well....and are just humoring you.

They don't know what to say to you. Heck, maybe they're even terrified of you! Who knows.

Anyway, hasta la vista!

[Drea]

Maybe your husband and brother know you too well....and are just humoring you.

They don't know what to say to you. Heck, maybe they're even terrified of you! Who knows.

Anyway, hasta la vista!

Of course, the men in your life would only humour you hon -- You've already admitted that because of your gender you are worth less and therefore are treated as such.

Of course the men in your life know exactly what to say to you -- "where's my socks? When's dinner". No need to worry your pretty little fragile female psyche with anything more profound -- you might just get "hysterical" if called on for your opinion on more important matters.