21
   

The end of men

 
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 08:45 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

I belive some of the reason why woman are "in" these days lies partially in marketing and idolizing. Woman has many more choises to be promoted, specially as sexsymbols, where men can't be promoted to the same audience, when sexy men would be considerd gay and are a big nono to the general public.


Hmm, but there's no real gender-wide power in being a sex symbol. If anything, being promoted as a sex symbol could be considered detrimental to the gender at large as most women fall short of such ideals. Certainly it wouldn't translate into a hiring preference or a selection preference for children. I doubt anyone is thinking "I'd like to have a daughter so she can grow up to be a sex symbol".
I belive I clearly wrote "many more choises", not "only as sexsymbols".
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 09:12 am
@HexHammer,
Yes, but sex symbols were your main example. What other examples of promotion were you talking about? I just want to be sure I'm understanding your point.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 09:24 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
Yes, but sex symbols were your main example. What other examples of promotion were you talking about? I just want to be sure I'm understanding your point.
Such as buisness women? Women in the army, astronauts, rock stars, movie stars ..etc ..etc.

FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 10:26 am
@HexHammer,
So you're saying it's marketing of women above men in those roles? While I think it's certainly true that woman are showing up more in those roles publicly than they did before, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are being promoted in ways that men aren't.
HexHammer
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 10:41 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

So you're saying it's marketing of women above men in those roles? While I think it's certainly true that woman are showing up more in those roles publicly than they did before, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are being promoted in ways that men aren't.
You asked if women can only be promoed as sex symbols, I gave more examples in which way they can be promoted, what you should have asked is which difference in promotion there are between men and women where women can excel.
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 11:44 am
@HexHammer,
Nope, I didn't ask that. You said that in your response to what I said about sex symbols. It's your opinion, I'm just trying to find out what it means.
HexHammer
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 02:46 pm
@FreeDuck,
Lol? ..whatever.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 03:00 pm
@chai2,
The insects and reptiles have dominant females and are larger e.g. queen bee. Sue the Chicago Tyrannosauruss Rex was a female which was larger than any male. In mammals and birds males are largers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2010 03:38 pm
@HexHammer,
Well, I'm more a sexual human than you are - then.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2010 08:54 am
@HexHammer,
You made a 'w' with your fingers and stuck it to your forehead just then didn't you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2010 09:48 am
@FreeDuck,
For what it's worth, and although i know people get bored with history, and think it is irrelevant--there are examples from history, and the ethnological inferences of pre-history, which are precedents for this.

In ancient Keltic societies, any woman whose property exceeded that of her mate was considered the head of the household--and was obliged to provide military service, either her own or a hired substitute. Both the Romans and the Greeks complained about Keltic women who would follow their men into battle, and then leap on the backs of their soldiers as soon as the Kelts were able to break their lines. Keltic societies were matrilinear, meaning descent was traced through the adult women--which makes sense, in that you can't be certain who fathered her children, and with a healthy young woman who knows how to use a sword, it might not be a good idea to ask. Men would favor not their sons (since they were often uncertain about that), but rather their sister-sons, their nephews, who they knew possessed their "blood."

The great Irish mythic hero, Cuchulainn, learned the use of weapons and the arts of war from two Scots women. (Scotland is called Scotland from the Irish colonies there at the time of the Roman invasion.)

It wasn't just the Kelts, either. The Sarmation, an Indo-Iranian people who occupied what is now the Ukraine, probably gave rise to the Greek legend of the Amazons. Long poo-pooed by historians who hewed to the Judeo-Christian misogynistic line of thinking, reinforced by Roman attitudes, modern archaeology has vindicated the Greeks. Many rich burials of female warriors have been found in Sarmatian sites, and the richest and most elaborate is that of a "warrior queen."

Among the Huron-Iroquois linguistic and cultural group, women occupied an important part in the polity. The women's council, of elders, could overrule the men on issues of protracted warfare, and had the sole right to decide on moving the village, sept or tribe. Among the Natchez, of the south of what is now the United States, the women chose the successors of priests or rulers, and their rather sensible code required all social classes to marry commoners (called "Stinkards" by the early European settlers). The offspring of a male of any social class and a female commoner reverted to the next lower class, but the offspring of a female and a commoner retained the class standing of the mother. At the highest levels of society, the male commoner became virtually the body servant of the woman who married him, and she could have him executed for infidelity--although she could, herself, have as many lovers as she chose.

We only assume that men are and always have been dominant because our ancestral cultures have been polluted by, or even obliterated by the Roman0-Judeo-Christian culture which has dominated European society for a thousand years.

It was not always so.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2010 01:49 pm
@Setanta,
That's true because most people have learned about the dominance of men from ancient times when men did the hunting, and the women took care of the family at home, and most cultures followed that tradition. The majority doesn't necessarily mean that all cultures lived with that limitation; we know that women became leaders, but they number a few compared to men.
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Aug, 2010 02:04 pm
@Setanta,
It's so good to have you back, Setanta, to shine light on the false stories of those who tend to make up their own version of history.

They twist, or take out of context, the pieces that falsely make their own arguments seem truthful.

Please stay for awhile.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2010 08:17 am
@Setanta,
Thanks, Set. It's always good to have a little history to inform our current situation. I think others have pointed out that bit of the article that isn't accurate as well, and that's accepted.

What I wonder, though, is how much we know about inflection points in the balance of power throughout history. For instance, we have your examples (and others) of societies where women were dominant or at least treated equally. But what happens when it swings from one to the other? That's where I think we are now. And I don't actually agree that we're looking at "the end of men" but only a period of tough adjustment for those who were used to getting by on their manliness alone. Similarly, women who were "sitting pretty" will also need to adjust.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Aug, 2010 02:37 pm
Sarah Haskins has some thoughts on why the end of men is inevitable. (Thanks to dagmaraka for the link!)

0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 07:10 pm
To restate my thesis from the other discussion...
Quote:
I'd say that the end of entitlement actually means the beginning of men. I am not fearful of being evaluated on an equal plane. I think that many great men will do greater in an equal society.

The idea of a social handicap is only appealing to the mediocre, and they are just as threatened by great men as great women.


A
R
T
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2011 12:54 pm
Quote:
Is divorce tougher on boys than on girls?

A new study reports that adult men whose parents divorced before they were 18 are two to three times more likely to seriously consider taking their own lives than men whose parents were not divorced by that age.

Women whose parents divorced by age 18 were not affected as dramatically. They, too, thought about suicide more often than other women, but the thoughts were explained by other traumatic experiences they’d had, like childhood abuse.

Divorce might be expected to have a bigger overall impact on daughters than sons, since in general women tend to be more susceptible than men to depression and suicidal thoughts. But the findings were not a surprise to the study’s lead author, Dr. Esme Fuller-Thomson, a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto in Ontario.

She noted that in most cases of divorce, at least until recently, mothers obtained custody of the children, and the lack of regular contact with a father may take a particular emotional and developmental toll on sons. “The loss of a male role model for the boys may seriously impact their well-being,” she said. “Other research has indicated a positive father figure is very important for young men and boys, to develop their gender identity and learn ways to regulate their emotions and enhance their mental health.”

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/sons-of-divorce-fare-worse-than-daughters/?hp

It could very well be that the main culprit in the current failure of men, and the reason we see women doing so much better than men in school and on the job, the reason we see so many women controlling ball less men....is the legacy of divorce. This is the one proposed explanation that seems to cover all the bases.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 01:18 pm
An piece in slate today argues that young men are doing poorly in life, but they can still get laid with no problem so they dont care. This fails to make notice however that there are a significant number of young men in the bottom of the pool who can not get laid, which is a danger to society. Also, I take great interest in the assertion that women are not making many demand on men in the sexual market place, given that the Feminists have been working for decades through manipulating sex law trying to tilt the sex market place in favor of women. Thus far it has not worked, which I would argue is because women dont want to be in control of sex, something that I have long asserted in the rape thread....feminists are trying to give women something that they generally do not want, so it has been a failure and will continue to be a failure no matter how many men get beat on in the process..
Quote:
To better understand what's going on, it's worth a crash course in "sexual economics," an approach best articulated by social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs. As Baumeister, Vohs, and others have repeatedly shown, on average, men want sex more than women do. Call it sexist, call it whatever you want—the evidence shows it's true. In one frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University's campus and proposed casual sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know: Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it. As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in consensual relationships therefore commences only when women decide it does.

And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse strings, they aren't asking for much in return these days—the market "price" of sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual options—more supply for his elevated demand—it takes some measure of price control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also, quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than they used to be.
.
.
.
And yet while young men's failures in life are not penalizing them in the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to achieve in life. Don't forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today's young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year's book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality put it, "Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy." They're right. But then try getting men to do anything.


As we have seen in spades wit black men, who generally get all the sex they want on the terms that they want....they are in high demand for sex from white women thus black women have no ability to make any demands. The black family structure is in tatters, the black culture is a disaster, and yet we see almost no interest from black men in applying a fix.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 03:05 pm
http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/new-white-house-social-secretary-man

Quote:
The New White House Social Secretary Is a Man

* Posted: February 25, 2011 at 2:03 PM
* By Noreen Malone

The White House has announced a new social secretary, and for the first time ever, it's a man: Jeremy Bernard, previously the senior advisor to the U.S.'s Parisian ambassador. Oo la la!

Bernard was an early supporter of Obama and a key fundraiser (a trait he shares with the two previous Obama social secretaries, Desiree Rogers and Julianna Smoot). The handsome, openly gay Texas native has an impressive and eclectic resume and a background in finance; he's also served on the President's Advisory Commision for the Kennedy Center during the Clinton presidency, and on several advisory boards for LGBTQ issues.

Bernard's selection comes after a mini-campaign for the Obamas to select a man for this historically female job. I argued that maybe until there are more women in key administration positions, we shouldn't be so eager to push for that. But I can't help cheering Bernard's selection, after all. It's fun to see gender norms like this one reversed, and just as I want to see women represented in key administration roles, I want to see openly gay members of an administration that's finally making gay rights more of a priority. I do feel a bit of a twinge that the selection does still play somewhat to stereoptype—women and gay men only can plan the parties!—but the position is far more than that, and I'm excited to see how Bernard puts his own stamp on it.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2011 10:34 pm
Dead Suit Walking


If this isn't the Great Depression, it is the Great Humbling. Can manhood survive the lost decade?

Quote:
They’re hurting, these men of a certain age. Losing their livelihood isn’t the only “transition” they’re going through. Dr. Jed Diamond, author of Surviving Male Menopause and The Irritable Male Syndrome, calls it a “double whammy.” The first: “a change of life, hormonally based, affecting our psychology and emotions from 40 to 55.” The second: unemployment. “It’s devastating. The extreme reaction is suicide, but before you get there, there’s irritability and anger, fatigue, loss of energy, withdrawal, drinking, more fights with their wives.”

And sex. Or lack thereof. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 45 percent of men admitted to a diminished interest in sex. It’s a vicious cycle, Diamond says. “You don’t feel as manly because you lost your job. You don’t feel as sexy, so there are more problems with you and your wife.”

Intellectually, women can say, “It’s not his fault, he’s working hard to find a job.” Emotionally, it’s another story. This is a generation caught between two ideas of manhood, says Coontz: “Old enough to have been brought up with a model of male breadwinning. Young enough to feel they shouldn’t be threatened if their wife has a job.”

When downward mobility is being disguised, it’s often by the wife. UCLA sociologist Jennie Brand studies the life trajectories of “socioeconomically disadvantaged populations,” which now includes white males. When people lose jobs, she finds upticks in depression and declines in social participation. Others have found divorce—as well as a transfer to kids, whose report cards suffer. “Everything I’ve done so far suggests that there will be long-term ramifications,” says Brand. “Not only in two or three years, but 10 years from now we’ll be dealing with the effects of this recession.” John Wells, whose acclaimed drama The Company Men is about four BWMs laid off by a Boston manufacturing firm, calls it a “lost decade.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/04/17/dead-suit-walking.print.html

However, as we have talk about in a few threads, it is the young men who are getting slammed by far the hardest, and who are the least prepared to deal with the hardships now imposed upon men.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Are women a minority? - Discussion by DrewDad
Do Women Sexualize Themselves? - Question by lizaveta
Name the most dangerous woman in the United States - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Are Women free of Converture laws today? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Why are some women attracted to bad men? - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
What can women do better than men? - Question by Robert Gentel
Women through the Ages - Discussion by George
50 Great Things About Women Over 50 - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The end of men
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/25/2020 at 08:12:08