Why are our young men so effeminate?

Ummm... yeah, you're going to have to make a batter argument than that.

 

King Leonidas would have considered Reagan a total wuss. Reagan made training films during a war for freakin' sake instead of killing his enemies with a big spear.

 

How so?

So?

Really? Actually they dont "naturally" want to do anything with regards to leadership unless they personally are inclined to do so. Get out of the dark ages mate.

...?... But you just said males 'taking charge' was natural? Oh so then it isnt natural its just a social construct. You just destroyed your own argument.

What - women? Ok, so what?

Again, so fricking what?

No, rather a nation that doesn't like war, being 'king of the hill' or any other idiotic sense of character once considered "natural". Masculinity is what men make it. If you cant hack it then you are the biggest "sissy" here.

 

Exactly! This thread is just a joke of ignorance.

 

Because it's not healthy. If you want a strong generation they have to be exposed to the real world.

Yes we are ignorant cavemen. There are biological differences between men and women.

Because their natural instincts are suppressed.

How the hell do you expect to survive if our population is too weak to have a rubber ball thrown at them? Wtf?

This has exactly zero to do with war. Masculinity is what men make it? Sorry, you'll never convince me that masculinity is being a whiny (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), too weak to take charge of anything.

 

I am seriously going to laugh my guts out when you run away from this. HAHA

How so? Explain the medical harm - with evidence of course.

Sure, who said not exposing them to the real world?

WTF? When did I say there weren't biological differences? When? Yes, you are the only caveman here - you cant even read. Explain to me the medical proof and evidence that masculinity as we socially define it is innate and "natural'. Clearly it isn't as demonstrated by the fact masculinity has changed over time and across societies. SOCIAL GENDER ROLES ARE NOT BIOLOGICAL.

Which natural instincts?

LOL We need rubber balls thrown at us? Explain to me how masculinity is necessary. Explain to me what is "weak about being effeminate. I bet you can't. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I think you should run along and play with the other idiots on this website. This is supposed to be an adult discussion.

Fair enough, but the symbolism was rather suggestive - guns, king of the hill etc etc.

Yep.

Why not? Do men have to "take charge"? Take charge of what? LOL What characteristics are necessary to take charge let alone for men to do so? Are you saying women cant take charge? You're living in a dream world - more reminiscent of the dark ages than the 21 century.

 

It's common sense. If you never have to survive, you don't build survival skills.

The whole premise of this thread is that they are sheltered and encouraged to be more effeminate. Therefore, they are not exposed to the real world and forced to build their own strength.

I can read. Refrain from the insults or I have nothing to say to you.

Gender tendencies are biological. Social roles were not invented by some random person thousands of years ago, they arose from personality differences between males and females. Gender roles have changed slightly, but for the most part, across most of history, men have been the protectors and the dominant members of society.

Do you think men and women have different roles because of some momentous coin toss thousands of years ago?

Men have a natural instinct to take charge and be more dominant.

I was referring to the dodgeball comment. If dodgeball (for example) is considered barbaric and we are too weak to participate in it, we will be a weak society. It is a shining example of the softening of the male in America.

That is how the whole notion that males are inferior has expressed itself for the most part, those are tangible things that can be attacked.

What do you think I mean by take charge? I mean take care of your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing family, make money, build things, be constructive, etc etc etc. I didn't say women couldn't take charge. I did say that men, on average, naturally possess more aggressive characteristics that put them in a better position to take charge.

You're throwing around insults and implying than I am some type of caveman.If you want to express your opinion that's great but don't give me that bull(*)(*)(*)(*), I assure you I am no dumber than you. Thanks.

 

No, it isn't. Besifdes even if it were, you made an assertion and need to validate it. If its 'common' knowledge then you should be able to explain the medical harm. I'm still waiting. LOL Face it there is no harm - and no medical evidence exists to back up your ancient claim. Stop humiliating yourself - for your own sake.

No the premise was not that they were sheltered at all, rather that they had no dominant male presence which apparently led to them becoming effeminate. Not only is that claim quite ignorant but has nothing to do with what you keep barking on about - ie 'isolation and sheltering'.

But they are exposed. The read the OP mate.

Ok, well then tell me where I said, which you claimed, that there weren't biological differences between men and women? Go on, show me where I said that. That's right, you can't. Dont make (*)(*)(*)(*) up and expect I get a little angry.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. You will be the first person in human history to have such proof.

Yes they were, hence why they change and are different in different places and times.

No sch thing exists. Individuals have different personalities, sure, but they are NOT gender specific.

Oh so you call men owning women and considering them as the lowest form of existence to women be considered equal to men as "a slight change"? LOL

Incorrect. For many thousands of years the role of women and men has changed. Initially women were seen as the 'dominant' because they gave birth - the blood line of kinship could be traced through women but not through men. This remained until a few thousand years ago when this changed due to the increasing position of men, having a greater physic gathering resources etc, taking a social role. This however invalidates rather than proves your point since it shows the malleability of gender roles. Men are stronger than women generally, sure but this means nothing outside of biology. If you want to say for that reason men should be 'hunters' go ahead but all it is is your opinion nothing else - there is no reason women cant do the same.

Not outside of those they choose. So "naturally" - no.

coin toss? Tell me what are the "roles"? Tell me what they are. Who decided them? And on what medical and biological basis are they justified?

PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THIS BULL(*)(*)(*)(*) CLAIM.

So, you think people need to play dodgeball? Ok, how is that relevant? Cant girls play dodgeball?

How so?

Who said anything about males being inferior? wtf? Man you are so deluded its hilarious.

I dont know, hence I asked.

Cant women do this? Cant women do this and men take care of the kids? It is possible, right?

Ahah, so you admit - women can take charge too. So why should men "have to" take charge and women not? Your argument makes no sense.

On average? According to what data? I have read one study talking about testosterone increasing male aggression slightly, however it was not only marginal it still doesn't justify your gender roles. Explain to me, if men were more aggressive, how that would mean they are "better" at taking charge than women? As far as I see this actually means men shouldn't, or at least should be mixed with women because they will be less aggressive and hence more rational and stable, as it were.

Yes an insult YOU first use. Hypocrite much? Fine I wont call you a caveman anymore as long as you dont call me a caveman.

Sure, sure. Note however you were the one first to make a claim you cant substantial and the first to use an insult I just replied with. I am still waiting for the supposed evidence you have for your views.

 

How is this not common sense? If you're not conditioned to be strong, you will be weak.

They are effeminate for a number of reasons. One of which is that they are sheltered and told that it is shameful to be masculine.

Forget the OP, they are sheltered. Kids don't work, they sit on their asses and watch TV. Just a side point.

You said: Actually they dont "naturally" want to do anything with regards to leadership.

I argue that men are more likely to have urges to want to do things with regards to leadership.

A simple google search will turn up the masses of research related to differences between men and women's brains.

They change slightly. Men, in 99% of cultures, are the dominant ones. Slight variations are not completely different gender roles.

A simple google search will turn up the masses of research related to differences between men and women's brains.

Show me where I said that. I said nothing like that.

Men should be "hunters" and the current places in society that correlate to what hunting was in the past.

Who decided them? The cavemen who realized that men were better soldiers, builders, etc. And every other society that has followed has realized the same things.

Why is this such a stretch when in virtually every society in history, men have been the ones to build the infrastructure, fight the wars, and many other things?

This was an incredibly tiny example of the softening of men.

I already explained this.

In society today, men are often demonized as being primitive idiots. I have heard it myself. I told you to stop with the insults.

Yes, it's very possible. I again stress that I am referring to averages.

As I said in the last post, I am talking about averages here. My fiance expects me to take charge, make money, etc. Not everyone is like this, but the average women wants a man who is stronger than her.

You have to be aggressive to be in business, be in the army, etc. All of which are necessary.

So women have certain qualities over men right? Exactly. Men also have their qualities. You are arguing that there is little difference between the genders, and then you are arguing that women are more rational and stable.

If you can't recognize some very obvious sarcasm then I can't help you.

If you can't recognize some very obvious sarcasm then I can't help you.

You want evidence? Look at all of history. Look at every great civilization, and tell me who created and protected it.

 

The whole point of this thread is that men are becoming for effeminate (aka more like women). My argument is that a society cannot survive without the contributions of both genders. We need men just as much as we need women, and if men become women, then we all suffer.

 

It doesn't matter if its common sense or not. I want you to provide medical evidence as to your assertion. You are clearly incapable of doing so - hence you are wrong.

No, you just wont be strong. That's like saying if you dont ever go to the gym, you'll be physically unfit which makes no sense. But regardless, who cares about 'being strong'.

Ok, fine now provide some evidence for that claim. If you cant then all you have is a baseless, pointless and meaningless opinion.

Of course but NONE show biological gender roles. Hence your point is factually hollow.

Well obviously we disagree. I see that as a TOTAL change.

Today, but not years ago and within societies today they are not all the same in terms of dominance.

Going from property to independent entity IS.

Again NONE OF WHICH IS EVIDENCE FOR SOCIALLY CONTRIVED GENDER ROLES.

Oh so you agree it was a very big change? Well then you just conceded defeat.

Why?

And they are?

That's what I'm asking you.

Ok, but we aren't cave men, hence why women have been soldiers and builders for years now.

No, they haven't - remember property and independence. The equivalent of your argument is that cavemen 'realized' the communal society and so we shouldn't have a democracy or liberal law we should have anarchic communal living. Complete nonsense.

Because they could have been rapists and dictators - this doesn't mean they SHOULD be such people nor does it mean men and only men can do particular jobs. All it shows was some societies had set structures - the fact they changed considerably undermined your assertion.

Yeah, so crap.

No you didnt, and you wont, because you can't.

Really? Often? Oh but hang on, isnt this what you want? I mean you said there were 'biological roles' so isnt it good such roles are identified? Why should the fact people hate such socially contrived identities change your stance?

Averages based on what evidence?

How so? So according to you, such occupations are based on aggression. So no man who isnt aggressive enough should be admitted into the army or business - is that what you are saying? Consequently, if a women is more aggressive than a man, she can be in business or the army? I guess that kind of nullifies your point anyway. LOL

Perhaps, but if they do it is marginal. Again I never said there were nay, let alone any definitive differences are than physical capacity.

So?

No, I said if there were differences - ie aggression in men, then the consequence would be women are more rational and stable because they are less aggressive hence there is still no basis for gender roles!

Sorry I'm finding it very hard to see where the jokes of your post start and end. LOL

You need to provide it as burden of proof of your claims. But yes we all know you haven't got any. Yes, I accept your white flag. Pretty funny some people actually have the views you express here. Luckily they are a minority.

 

Right... If you don't expose someone to math, they will not learn math. It's common sense, but okay.

Are you serious? If one guy goes to the gym and one sits on the couch all day, I think there's a good change the guy who goes to the gym will be more physically fit. Am I wrong?

I care about being strong. We need strength to run businesses, produce things, protect our country, etc.

Then disagree with my opinion, that's fine. Or you can look at all the instances of men being aggressive and fighting to get to the top (in other words, be leaders).

Gender roles are determined by personality partly, as I said before.

Women and men still have distinct differences in today's society. Men pursue women, men pay for dates, I could go on for days.

I didn't say they were the same, hence the word slightly. Men have for the most part been more dominant than women.

There are still very strong differences between men and women, even in today's culture.

Gender roles are determined by personality partly, as I said before. Do you think gender roles are pure coincidence? Come on.

Things have greatly changed. There are still strong differences though...

Because they are physically stronger, and more aggressive, as you said earlier.

I hunt for money on a daily basis as a business owner. I am very aggressive. I would be a failure if I lacked this trait.

I gave you my opinion on this. No one single person created gender roles, they arose from biological differences.

Women on average are not as physically strong as men. Therefore, men on average are better soldiers and builders.

My argument is that even a primitive caveman realized that men and women had different skill sets. I never said we should all go back to the caves, you're exaggerating my position. I do think that we should recognize the natural differences and not try to hide from it.

It doesn't change the fact that men created them. If women are as strong as men, why didn't they create one thousandth of the civilizations that men created? And don't say because they were kept down. Many men were kept down too.

I don't know what you mean.

Um, if men are considered too weak to be hit with a rubber ball, then that is softening. You're asking for scientific evidence and refusing to use common sense.

A man who is never exposed to the harsh reality of being hit with a rubber ball will not be as conditioned to be strong as a man who was.

Because not all men are primitive idiots as some like to imply. And even these primitive idiots have created great things. America for example.

Overall, yes though, on average, men are more primitive-idiot-like than women are. I'm not ashamed though. This is my point.

Averages based on thousands of years of human history.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Of course.

I repeat, I am talking averages here. Are you implying that men are not more aggressive than women, on average?

Women have much higher EQs than men. Women are much better at communicating than men. Women are better with languages. Just a couple examples. Google for more.

So men have qualities. This is a rebuttal to your argument that there should be no gender roles. If men and women have different qualities that allow them to exceed in different areas, why should there be no gender roles?

Obviously there is a basis for gender roles if these differences do exist.

I give you no flag. I don't even understand your argument. Are you saying that men and women are biologically identical? If not, are you saying that they are biologically different, but that's not enough to justify different gender roles?

I told you, go on Google and research the differences between the brains of men and women. Look at thousands of years of history. Look at the physical differences between men and women. If you can acknowledge that, then how can you be so sure that there aren't personality differences strong enough to justify different gender roles?

 

Still waiting for the medical evidence.

No you aren't but that isnt the same as what you said. You said the guy that doesnt go to the gym and lives his life normally will be weak. I say that he wont be weak, he just wont be as strong as if he went to the gym.

Why?

But, the clothes you are wearing are most likely made in asia - by women. Protecting the country hardly needs an army, although women fight in it as well whilst these days and businesses are run by women easily.

Yeah so its just an ignorant opinion -not a fact. thanks for agreeing.

How partly?

So you are saying women dont pursue men or pay for dates? Wow where do you live mate?

Yeah but not always hence your point is wrong.

Exactly - its culture, not nature.

Yes but this is no reason men HAVE TO engage in that occupation.

So do women - argument fail.

So are many women.

So would successful women.

What biological differences did they arise from?

Sure they are better, but they aren't all builders are they? And some women are soldiers aren't they which means men dnt have to be soldiers or builders, they just tend to be, but women cna do these jobs.

So you are saying you analyze women and men with the mindset of a caveman? Is this what you are saying?

Socially contrived roles. They could have - they could have.

No, you wouldnt.

So?

How so?

So are they or aren't they?

You make this assertion based on what evidence?

But history changed. History has changed the roles now so why are you crying/ You should be happy - its history.

Ok, so where is the evidence men are more aggressive than women? Show me the medical research.

Well there you go - gender roles dont have to be enforced and dont mean anything. It all dependent on individual character. End.

 

Give me medical evidence that you can't use common sense.

He will be weaker... Everything is relative. There is no certain degree of weakness that defines "weak"

For the reasons I stated.

It needs an army, even if it's an army of 3 people. Men are better suited for these 3 positions because they are stronger.

There are plenty of women who run businesses. There are more men who run businesses.

Um look at the thousands of instances of men being leaders. It's not an opinion.

Because there are always many factors that come into play, more than you can count. Biological differences are the basis, not the end-all deciding factor.

Men are more likely to walk up to women on the street and ask for their numbers. I see men approach women about 10x as much as I see women approach men. I'd be turned off if my fiance wanted to pay for my food.

I live in DC.

Holy (*)(*)(*)(*) man. I said mostly. Not always. So my point is right, since you just said "yeah"

Culture is created by humans, who create a culture based on their natural instincts.

I never said they had to. I said that they shouldn't be pushed into more effeminate roles.

More men are business owners than women. Rebuttal fail.

Once again, these are averages. On average, men are more aggressive.

Our BRAINS are wired differently. GOOGLE

You're re-stating my point. I'm talking about averages here. I never said anything about ALL men or ALL women.

No, you are twisting it. What I'm saying is we need to recognize the personality differences between men and women, and stop trying to shove everyone into a genderless box.

You can't (*)(*)(*)(*) with nature. It never works.

They could have, yes. But much less likely. That's why it never happened. There have been thousands of societies and civilizations, the vast majority of which were created and controlled by men. Quite a coincidence.

Care to explain or just imply that I'm an idiot?

I already stated why we need men who are not soft. A society of softies will not survive. A society of softies will be attacked and conquered eventually. A society of softies will not be strong enough to compete with others and amongst themselves for maximum growth.

I'm not going to explain this to you. Obviously if you are never exposed to obstacles you will never gain the skills necessary to overcome them. Common sense.

So everything is black and white? Read what I said. I said some men are, and some men aren't.

YOU said women were more rational and stable. You are a genius, so I am following your assertions.

I'm not crying. A tiny sliver of history has started to go against everything before it, that proves nothing.

And as I said before, even with all the changes, men are still primarily dominant.

You ever heard of testosterone?

It does depend on individual character, I never said it didn't. I never said we should enforce gender roles. I said we should STOP enforcing gender roles that push men to be more effeminate. So you agree with me, good.

The whole point of this thread is that men are being pushed into a gender role their individual character (based on biology) will more likely than not be incompatible with.

 

Why? Sorry you made a point you need to validate it. Obviously you cant therefore your point is complete tripe.

But women could take them, yes? And men might not take them and they would still be men, yes?

Yes, its an opinion, and an ignorant one at that.

And consequently prove your assertion wrong.

Based on what evidence?

What are you a pervert? Of course such action can be based on socially enforced gender identity.

Be turned off - she still can though, cant she?

Amazing.

Indeed because you are pulling your "facts" out your ass. Its pretty funny to.

No, who create a culture based on ideas - in this case prejudice.

That is totally hypocritical. If they dotn 'have to' then they can be pushed because it wont make a difference. You make no sense.

So?

So?

Yes but in what way as to naturally create gender roles. Show me with google. Go on. Give a link - just one, Or wait you cant because no such evidence exists.

So, how do you propose we 'recognize' them?

Indeed, and because gender roles aren't natural, modern society works just fine.

You've already done that yourself.

Why will it not survive? Also why do men have to be strong only?

LOL Yep you are totally devoid of fact and reality. hahah hilariously ignorant.

Which proves yourself wrong.

Where?

Yes it does it proves everything according to you.

Well I mentioned it before so don't you think that's a another dumb question form you? Explain to me the implications.

Well then why are you making an argument that says we should enforce gender roles - like making males "strong" and saying men and women are different on gender specific lines? You are a total hypocrite.

Why?

Lol Yeah I agree with you now because you have totally contradicted your last points. HAHAHA

Again what biology specifically?

If they are incompatible why have they shown to be totally compatible with it? Show me the evidence of incompatibility? There is none. Man your entire argument is laughable.

 

It's common sense that if you aren't exposed to obstacles, you will not build resistance to them.

Hypothetically, yes. However men, on average, would be more capable.

Go find a list of world leaders and see the percentage that are men. Wtf.

No... Most societies are near the traditional gender roles.

This isn't evidence, this is my personal experience, along with the personal experience of everyone I know. Men have always been the pursuers, and women have always been the selectors, in 99% of cultures.

I'm not gona debate you if you're going to throw insults at me. I don't even know where you got that from.

She could, but she doesn't want to and I don't want her to. As with most people I know.

You asked where the (*)(*)(*)(*) I lived.

You AGREED with me. You said "yeah". That means YES.

Where the hell do they come up with these ideas? From their own natural instincts.

I never said to PUSH THEM. I said to NOT PUSH THEM into effeminate roles.

So it stands to reason that men are more likely to pursue business ownership.

As I said, you NEED to be aggressive to run a business.

I'm not going to do your research man. You know (*)(*)(*)(*) well you could go on google and type "men women brains" and find studies.

By NOT trying to push men to be more effeminate.

Gender roles are based on natural instincts. Modern society has a 50% divorce rate BTW.

Ok, that's it, I have nothing more to say to you. I haven't insulted you once, this is number 5 by my count. Grow the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

 

LOL You are so incapable of defending our ignorance you (for obvious reasons) cant supply one piece of medical proof.

Win.

Yeah and, so what? People kill each other in the world. Does that mean people should kill each other? Your argument is nonsensical.

Actually, yes.

So its bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Why didnt you admit that before?

You're looking on guys hooking up with chicks - that's pervy, well to me at least. Nice to see you avoid the question.

How do you know?

What the heel does that matter?!?

No one cares about the people you know.

Yes. Your point?

No that means 'yeah - lol - sure'

Which natural instincts?

Which invariably means to funnel them into what you see as a non-effeminate role. Its a total binary.

How so? No it stands to reason (and you still haven't proven that they are actually more aggressive) that they are more aggressive and nothing else.

Really you NEED to be? Sorry this is just another one of your opinions. It takes smarts - not aggression.

Yes you are if you make assertions. You need to prove your own crap not ask others to do it for you.

Find them for me. Oh wait there aren't any. ps. I did try just to be sure and couldn't find any confirming your point.

And consequently pushing them into something else.

Which ones?

So?

HAHAHA I knew it was coming - win.

Yes you have multiple times.

haha I have. Why dont you enter the 21st century.

 

I get a big laugh when I read some of these silly foolish remarks, and rebudles from the Gay society on these boards.

How nice is it, that they have their own little quaint section, tucked in the corner. Where normal decent folk come and visit unexpectedly.
To throw stones.

Is this a great country or what.?

 

You're only demonstrating the shallowness of your thinking. Leonidas stood up to a bully in his way just as Reagan did in his way.

 

Yeah so do I. Hilarious.

LOL Gay society? haha oh great another one.

So, are you scared of gay people? LOL Such ignorance. Now this is comedy.

Yep, soon enough they'll have full marriage rights. haha hope that gives you something to think about.

 

How so? Are you saying men of today have the same masculinity as Leonidas?

Which Bully did Reagan stand up to? Innocent people in Nicaragua? LOL Actually Reagan is better compared to a terrorist, since he was one, legally speaking.

 

Bull, how many times you go into a bar or some setting where a man gets all insecure and needs to do something about it. I can count the number of times some dude gets all insecure when they see other guy with an attractive woman and feel a need to fight the guy. That wreaks of insecurities man, emotional insecurities. Logical my ass. Men are just as emotional as woman they just handle it differently. Many men are just as insecure as woman, just about different things, like penis size, ego, etc.

None of that is "manly" though in the conventional sense. That's just being nice, and from what I read here nice is equated with soft.

Bull again, 50 years ago someone like Bill would be considered "soft" or effeminate. Now he isn't considered that. A cook was considered soft as well, and in some places still is. I get the feeling you equate any type of success as masculine and failure as feminine. Bill's success has had nothing to with the masculine traits, that was pure intelligence and strategy in the business sense there. And the guy was surrounded by nerds and people who viewed an opportunity.

Some of the best business owners of this modern day and age are far from "masculine". Why? Because your stereotypical tough guy knows jack-squat about technology which is in many cases a critical component to success in this computer and information age. Which is why some woman are having an immense amount of success in the business world, like the previous CEO of ebay.

 

Hey....Did you know that in the country of Iran....When the find a gay homo man or lesbian women....The be-head them - no questions asked.
Anotherwords.....Cut their heads off.
Sometimes they are televised.

In fact there are other Muslim nations that have the same laws under Islam.

Can you imagin if the Islamic way of life were to really - really filter into the western civilization.

IS'NT THAT SOMETHING ?.

 

Do you watch it?

LOL Are you dumb enough that you are asserting this part of the whole 'Muslim way of life'?
Did you know most Muslims dont support this? Obviously not. Muslim civilization is fine. FACT.

Do you like killing gay people?

 

And this has precisely what to do with the topic under discussion?