Why are our young men so effeminate?

I wouldn't quite say that a true patriot is one that can aim a gun, but I would say that the gun aiming person would probably be more patriotic then say a sissified anti war liberal girly boy who still hasn't outgrown the need to dress up in heels, a party dress and an old used pair of his mamma's panties.

 

Lol Lol Lol

 

Ahem:

"Am I the only person that sort of enjoys this whole feminized male trend? If you're the only one not buying into it, it makes life so much easier. There's no competition for anything. No one is really a physical threat to you. You can pretty much take your pick of any woman you want. It's like when you were the oldest kid on the block back when you were growing up. You're pretty much the king of the mountain by default and you don't really even have to put much effort into it."

This implies that the threat of physical force is what determines who you lay; indeed, you don't seem to think that women's decisions hinge on anything else:

Really now... do you actually think being a patriarchal chowderhead works on all women? 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.

 

Young men today know they don't have the mojo their fathers had. That's why they're so depressed about the future.

 

Total codswallop! The Colonel Blimps of the 1930s said that of the young men of their day, but those same 18 and 19 years olds, straight out of school and college, climbed into Hurricanes and Spitfires, and fought against overwhelming odds to win the most important battle of the twentieth century. A large percentage gave their lives in so doing. Given the same threat, we would do the same today.

On Weald of Kent I watched once more
Again I heard that grumbling roar -
of fighter planes, yet none were near
and all around the sky was clear
borne on the wind a whisper came -
though men grow old, They stay the same
and then I knew unseen to eye -
the ageless few were sweeping by.

Lord Balfour of Inchrye

 

This generation of young men is in large part functionally illiterate, and suffers from Lo-T.

 

What a diseased imagination you have!

I am anti-war in principle, but if my country were in danger of invasion, or annihilation, I would join up in a flash. Who wouldn't?

I am anti-war for the good reason that I lost my dad to war when I was young. He died as a result of injuries sustained in the Gulf War, and there was no good reason for him to have been there. But he was a professional soldier and went where his regiment was sent.

It is all too easy to be gung ho from behind the safety of a keyboard - when you do not have to pay that sort of price. And no, I would not agree that a young boy who can aim a gun is more likely to be courageous when courage is needed, than a boy who has not fired a gun. I have fired a rifle as part of my ATC training at school, but that has no bearing whatsoever upon whether I would be courageous in the heat of battle. Courage come from within, not from a gun.

 

At 17, I could be considered part of this generation of young men. Neither my contemporaries nor I are generally considered illiterate, but I have no idea what Lo-T is.

 

What imagination? I'm 61 years old, and so whatever I post here comes from having lived, experienced or extensively read about each and every subject in question.

I'll tell you who wouldn't!..... All those anti war, Orwellian-minded, draft dodging-Canada bound, dovish, pacifist, f*** the establishment, pot smoking, opium den inhabitant, long-haired maggot infested liberals/socialists/marxists/commies and progressives of the sixties who aided the Democrap congress in helping America lose the Vietnam war...that's who wouldn't and didn't sign up.

Its interesting how many of the liberal offspring of those who died in any of our wars seem to have your same outlook on war and of our military in general with statements that speak for their father's duty in war as being something they abhorred or felt that they had no need to serve in a combat role.

While I am a combat veteran myself having served in Vietnam, I find it easy for yourself to feign being gung ho, despite the fact that you've never served in the military.

We have a difference of opinion here. I can only say if you were to line up 5 boys who take pleasure in playing with their toy guns and toy weapons and juxtapose them with 5 girly mamma's boys.....I would bet my bottom dollar that the toy gun boys grow up to be possible military leaders who show extreme patriotism for their nation while the 5 sissies grow up to be tranny escorts who would be the first ones to wave the silky white flag in retreat from any kind of military threat.

 

OK, so you are older than my Gran - but that makes you an authority on every subject?

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it, but what possible bearing has that on the generation of today which you are reviling?

I have every right to an opinion on why my dad had to die to serve someone else's national interests. So don't pull that nationalistic BS with me.

I'm not out of fecking school yet, so I have no chance of serving in the military. And I despise the 'gung ho' attitude, so I am unlikely to feign it.

As for your Vietnam War service, I am sure you served honourably and well, but don't expect me to be in awe of the American invasion and brutalisation of a tiny Asian country that posed no threat to the USA.

We certainly do. I know of no boys who did not enjoy playing with toy guns as they grew up, and I was no exception. So your attempted comparison is meaningless, as well as being pure conjecture.

My father was a senior, and much decorated, officer in the Coldstream Guards. His courage and integrity were never in question (you do not earn the DSO and Bar, the Military Cross, and become a Knight Commander of the Order of St.Michael and St.George, by being a wuss,) yet he was a softly spoken, self-effacing, (almost timid seeming) and highly intellectual man, who detested guns and unnecessary violence. He was a gentleman soldier in every sense of the word, and during my childhood, I never heard him raise his voice. He was the very antithesis of 'gung ho'.

Courage is never something which is associated with guns, or weapons of any sort, and he was proof of that.

 

Low Testosterone.

 

Tough kid^!

I don't know that I'm ladylike, but I do like to take care of myself. I like to get my haircut regularly. I care a lot about my appearance too.

I was also one to play kill the man with the ball as a kid. I broke my nose twice: once playing football and the other time I was trying to lift a 14lb weight at 6 years old.

 

At least as much an authority as your gran.

I would be referring to today's generation of socialist liberal progressives and wannabe hippies who are often the offspring of the sixties generation of the drop out-drop acid crowd of anti war/anti American losers.

Yes you do have the right to skew the intentions of someone (anyone) who chooses to serve in the military. I don't know of any military man or woman who voluntarily signs up for the military, knowing full well of the risks involved, that had a passive, non aggressive, pre determined psyche that their mission was unnecessary and perhaps ill advised in the first place. That just doesn't pass the smell test of a person joining the military. Sorry!

No one said that these boys to men would adopt a gung ho attitude simply for having played with toy guns as an adolescent. Perhaps a few would be described as gung ho such as an Audie Murphy or a General Patton, but that trait certianly isn't the norm. It does seem that you have already made up your mind to avoid the military at all costs. Perhaps you can glean a sense of patriotism out of having that pre determined mindset, for I just don't see it.

I wouldn't expect you to be in awe of a young boy just getting his Eagle Scout award, but would expect you to be in awe of a young girly boy getting an 'A' grade on a test from his Homosexual 101 class. Before showing your total lack of knowledge on the Vietnam War, I suggest you read the book..."The Politically Correct Guide to the Vietnam War" so that you could then bring your 'A' game to the table. I'll excuse you for being so young now as being the factor for your ignorance on that subject, but please don't let it happen again.

What you might want to do here is to research the progress of some of these toy gun playing individuals to see which ones went on to become outstanding citizens while others went on to become welfare/entitlement drags on society. I see a possible psychiatric position for you in the future. Success and or patriotism does seem to be an origination of having a strong gene pool.

A soldier who detested guns? I'm not sure I have the professional qualifications to do due justice to that particular oxymoron. Again, being gung ho is a trait left for a select few...be that good or bad.

Courage is something that is 'NEVER' associated with guns or weapons? Tell that to the soldier who just received the Medal of Honor for bravery in the Middle East as he was engineering a select group of soldiers toward a mass killing rout of the enemy. Btw, this MOH recipient also lost his hand in the battle.

 

First off - a word of warning. Do not try to deprecate the actions, the motives, or the reason, of my late father again, or you will find out just how impolite I can be.

You have chosen to be as implicitly insulting as possible, so may I respectfully suggest that you and I do not continue this discussion. I attempt to be respectful to all posters, and particularly so to those who are of my grand parents' generation, so I will close by saying it is a pity you have demonstrated such inflexibility of thought, but I thank you for your input.

 

I did not deprecate the actions, motives or reasons of your late father. I merely gave you my insight as to what generally constitutes the psyche matter of a person entering the military. So if you want to keep on believing that your father looked at the military in an opposing view to all typical military protocol, then that is your right, however wrong it may be.

I will grant your wish by not responding any further to you in this particular post. But I can't leave without issuing you a parting shot. Think again before saying that I have demonstrated an inflexibiity of thought. It is my belief that it is because I have demonstrated such a wide open flexiblity of thought that has you so confused so as to make you decide to avoid further truths from me the truth detector.

 

To allege men, generally, are now effeminate, and that this is somehow bad, shows more about the insecurities of those ignorant folks that make such claims, rather than anything to do with reality.

 

You are too young to remember how real men acted and respected each other, especially woman.

I have been in public places with my MIL and wife two young daughters and the foul language used by the kids today is unseemly and rude. When I politely ask them to 'cool it' , they feel some need to spew more of their filthy language. That, it seems, is what makes them tough men. Talking dirty and telling anyone who calls them on it to f*** off. They need to be slapped, BUT our society now frowns on that.

In a time gone by, two MEN would have a disagreement, toss a few punches and then go have a cup of coffee together as friends. Further back in time, men challenged each other to a duel, would miss on purpose and shake hands.

 

If you had actually "experienced or extensively read about each and every subject in question", you would not have posted this garbage in the first place. America 'lost' the war in Vietnam the moment we lethally intervened in their democratic self-determination; from aiding the French to installing Diem, carpet bombing civilians and laying waste to nearly a quarter of the countryside, America was CLEARLY in the wrong... and tens of thousands of American lives, and well over a million Vietnamese lives paid for this deception-laden arrogance.

Like many... you were bamboozled then, and you remain bamboozled now; the extended effects causing...

... you to cough up the most ridiculous nonsense masquerading as political thought:

Being an Eagle Scout myself, I take umbrage to your use of us juxtaposed against your homophobic straw-man.

F-rated right-wing propaganda rags do not interest historians like myself. Might I suggest A Bright Shining Lie by John Paul Vann, or The Politics of Heroin by Hank McCoy?

 

"A study of 3-5 year olds in child care focused on the children's real and pretend aggression, rough-and-tumble play, and nonaggressive pretend play. Results suggest that toy gun play and parental punishment are positively associated with a high level of real aggression but not of pretend aggression. (LB)"

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ453399

"A study done in 2002 by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that children who played with toy guns were 10 times more likely to fight with other children rather than use non-aggressive problem solving techniques. This same study indicated that children who played with toy guns were more likely to own a loaded gun in their home as an adult. In fact, 30% of today’s households have a loaded gun. Loaded guns in homes are often the cause of accidental deaths where children pick up a loaded gun believing it is a toy gun. Children under the age of nine are shown to not know the difference between a toy gun and a real gun."

http://therealmomtv.com/momreport/2011/06/06/toy-gun-dangers-in-your-home/

"The effects of toy guns and toy airplanes on children's antisocial (aggression and rule-breaking) behavior was investigated in two settings (ten children in Study I and 13 in Study II) during 30-min free play sessions. Four-and 5-year-old children were observed during 15–16 free play sessions. During some sessions the children played either with (novel, aggressive) toy guns or with (novel, nonaggressive) toy airplanes in addition to their usual toys. In both studies, the toy guns treatment produced a reliably higher rate of antisocial behavior than the average of the toy airplaines and the usual toys. The novel-nonaggressive toy airplanes also increased the rate of antisocial behavior as compared to usual toys in Study II. The results were related primarily to Berkowitz's and Bandura's analyses of aggressive behavior, but they were related also to other theoretical models which predict stimulus control of behavior."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022096576900448

Consider yourself pwn'd.

 

Elaborate, if you can. You probably cant though.

LOL So you are upset and hence effeminate? Hypocrite!

Bahaha! humiliated by kids. Welcome to the 21st century gramps - freedom of speech.

LOL You sound quite wimpy. If you dont like swearing (yet prefer smacking - what hypocrisy!) then go somewhere else.

Sure. Well maybe you should have punched them. Why didnt you? Scared of the police? Yeah well sorry but in 'time gone by' there were police too. And sorry further to tell you but, maybe you come from the 'Mad Max' part of the world, but 'assault' has a been a crime for quite a while - that includes punching someone for swearing.

LOL Yeah a few US statesmen died that way, idiots. Well I could tell you an interesting story of my farther who did indeed come from a rough neck of the woods (the Aussie country) which would probably very much appeal to your sense of 'manhood', (in fact it is a total punch for an insult story), but you probably wouldn't want to hear it.

p.s. According to you, pretty much everyone living near a violent area is a 'man', which would consequently include me.

 

More like EPICALLY PWN'D. Nice job.

 

Who the hell are you to tell someone how to speak?

 

Body chemistry is different in young men today. Pollutants and contamination have caused Lo-T.

 

Your comments actually prove the point that "masculinity" is culturally based. Some cultures like the Maori would consider someone not killing another over an insult a "sissy", yet you hold that up as a token of manhood.

It is all relative.

 

You have no clue as to what our mission was in Vietnam. America lost the war on two fronts. Pis-poor (feckless-indecisive-dovish) leadership by the failures of LBJ, his congress, and the constant voices of the stateside anti war liberals led us to waving the WHITE flag. But WAR to you libs was never about 'WINNING' as Charlie Sheen would say, rather, it was about giving you pacifist libs a voice to bad mouth America, and to badmouth our military and our mission. People die in wars, and you libs need to face reality when it comes to the obvious. Not once would it have entered your mind that America's mission was to stop the spread of Communism, and thus save the nation of South Vietnam--similar to our mission in South Korea some 15 years or so earlier. But again, if and until you read the book.."The Politically Incorrect Guide to Vietnam", and or change your pacifist mindset--chances are great that you'll never know the real truth about the Vietnam saga.

My guess is that you never progressed past the Eagle Scout stage in life.

This just goes to tell us how close-minded and out of touch with reality you are.