Why are our young men so effeminate?

Only when they are not using it in anger, but you seem remarkably (almost disturbingly) familiar with the state of the anatomy of young men today. Are you a researcher?

 

Haha. You're good. I like you.

I'm a therapist. Young men tell me their problems, and I have a good laugh.

 

I fail to understand how testosterone-related behaviors are fake.

 

And after you laugh at their problems do you pat yourself on the back for being a good therapist?

 

Yup, just what the doctor ordered. I heal them. Haha.

 

Wow... you're a pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ty therapist; how did you come to this profession?

 

Being a good therapist is not in how the therapist feels about his/her clients, but in the outcome of said therapy. Personal feelings don't come into play unless the therapist brings those feelings into the profession.

 

Which I have reason to believe he does, considering his trite, regressive views of masculinity; how in the hell can someone like that treat young men?

 

Your only reason is *what you believe*, not based on observation of outcomes.

 

So you're saying his stated beliefs (or lack thereof) give no indication of his efficacy as a therapist?

 

I'm not talking about testosterone effects. I'm talking about the cultural exaggeration of the masculine and suppression of the feminine that constitues the fake macho image that many are fooled into thinking a real depicition of manhood. The same thing exists for women too, in reverse, even more so.

 

This. For the first time men are not feeling as thought they have be forced into a specific role by society so of course you're going to see less men being forced into a more set "manly" role.
I don't think that the so called "securing" of schools and the creation of a "safe" school environment has caused this if only because on a scale never before seen young men have access to very violent video games and movies.

 

Not necessarily. Environmental conditions which influence hormone production and utilization in the body would probably tend to make males less "macho" and females less feminine in what we consider sexual behaviors.

 

Which would result in the collapse of our nation.

 

Wow, not sure I would admit that derogatory moniker Spite.

 

But they are all largely in effective in their roles as males in our society.

 

Well it is a fact that a group of women cannot work TOGETHER as effectively as a group of men can because of some inherent competition amongst themselves, and because emotion overrides everything else in many cases.

Only liberal effeminate ones.

 

Hyperbole becomes no one.

 

So its an iron clad law that all conservatives are macho manly men and liberals are feminine sissies?
In reality there are some quite strong and manly liberals and some quite feminine conservatives, although I will give you that the scales are more in favor of what you claim they are, but they are not universals.
Indeed even throwing in the word liberal in this instance obscures the actual issue at hand and is simply partisan trash talk which kills any actual valuable discussion.

 

Quoted for The lulz.
There's no reason why a more effeminate leadership would lead to the destruction of any nation. It might lead to some things that I don't particularly care for, or it might even be preferable, it's first of all quite difficult to know a priori, and second of all there is still reason to believe that this would not be the case, the first simply being that women are less likely to be blinded by their egos and pure "manly" egoism. Even if you could make the claim they would be blinded by emotion, the fact is that women are capable of the same reason as men are, and so are likely to use that tool to come to similar successes... Or at least no a significantly higher amount of failure

 

Let's see...wrong again as usual, let me count the ways:

I didn't respond "angrily", I pointed out that one, the whole thing was idiotic, and two, it has been around for a long time and is just as idiotic as a re-re-re-re-re-re-re-repost as it was the first time I saw it.

I am not a liberal, at least not in the sense you use the word...not a conservative, either. I'm a liberal the same way Thomas Jefferson was: a libertarian.

I suspect if you drink beer, you drink beer from a non-US company. I never did. In fact, the beer I drank was from the LARGEST American beer company, brewed with a method dating to the founder's (American) great-grandfather.

 

You're the one making the assertion, it's up to you to back it up!

 

Care to back up that statement with some references. I have never seen any studies that show that women cannot work together in groups as effectively as men.

 

You're the one dodging the question. I already told you there was a reason why I was asking you these things. But now you're stalling and trying to change the subject. So until you address what I've asked you, I'm done talking to you.

I get the impression that what's tripping you up is that you are faced with the dilemma of either lying about it or admitting you're not the expert that your bravado would have you appear to be.

 

The details of my personal history is irrelevant to this thread, and indeed were irrelevant to the response I gave to your post that implied that the threat of physical force is what determines who you lay and that women's decisions hinge on little else. I responded with:

"Perhaps, just perhaps... many women prefer other traits in men, some of which you may view as feminine; it's a grab bag, a complex exchange... not a club-swinging contest."

But complexity and nuance doesn't seem to be your strong suit any more than relevancy. But if you really want to know more details, here's one: I've done better with women when I was less the patriarchal ass as compared to other times when I was more straight-up traditionally masculine (American).