Feminists' view of men and manhood

[Gary Childress]

...but sadly not in sufficient force to affect the delegates in Glasgow.

Unfortunately, I think some men have embraced a relationship of animosity with feminism. I'm not sure whose fault that is, whether it be the fault of some feminists out there who have genuinely pushed the topic too far out of reasonable bounds or it if be of some men who are reacting too narrowly to those feminists who have pushed the topic out of reasonable bounds (at the expense of missing the better parts), but it's certainly a mess right now. Or maybe it's always been a mess.

[Belinda]

...but sadly not in sufficient force to affect the delegates in Glasgow.

Unfortunately, I think some men have embraced a relationship of animosity with feminism. I'm not sure whose fault that is, whether it be the fault of some feminists out there who have genuinely pushed the topic too far out of reasonable bounds or it if be some men who are reacting too narrowly to those feminists who have pushed the topic out of reasonable bounds (at the expense of missing the better parts), but it's certainly a mess right now. Or maybe it's always been a mess.

Gary, sorry but that is not what I meant.
Men who can't abandon the macho stereotype are victims too. Feminists would like the opposite sex to free their more feminine natures, so they are less stupidly macho.

[Gary Childress]

...but sadly not in sufficient force to affect the delegates in Glasgow.

Unfortunately, I think some men have embraced a relationship of animosity with feminism. I'm not sure whose fault that is, whether it be the fault of some feminists out there who have genuinely pushed the topic too far out of reasonable bounds or it if be some men who are reacting too narrowly to those feminists who have pushed the topic out of reasonable bounds (at the expense of missing the better parts), but it's certainly a mess right now. Or maybe it's always been a mess.

Gary, sorry but that is not what I meant.
Men who can't abandon the macho stereotype are victims too. Feminists would like the opposite sex to free their more feminine natures, so they are less stupidly macho.

Sorry. I wasn't insinuating anything about what you meant. I was simply commenting or reflecting tangentially.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

...but sadly not in sufficient force to affect the delegates in Glasgow.

Unfortunately, I think some men have embraced a relationship of animosity with feminism. I'm not sure whose fault that is, whether it be the fault of some feminists out there who have genuinely pushed the topic too far out of reasonable bounds or it if be some men who are reacting too narrowly to those feminists who have pushed the topic out of reasonable bounds (at the expense of missing the better parts), but it's certainly a mess right now. Or maybe it's always been a mess.

Gary, sorry but that is not what I meant.
Men who can't abandon the macho stereotype are victims too. Feminists would like the opposite sex to free their more feminine natures, so they are less stupidly macho.

'..free their more 'feminine' natures...' You just can't help yourself. Not only 'stereotyping' women, but feminists as well...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If men had spent more time listening to their wives and not raping them and beating them about the body and head, their children would have had a better chance, and the world would have been a more peaceful place.

So 'stereotyping' men. Hardly unexpected. Hypocrisy is par for the course with wokies.

[Belinda]

Unfortunately, I think some men have embraced a relationship of animosity with feminism. I'm not sure whose fault that is, whether it be the fault of some feminists out there who have genuinely pushed the topic too far out of reasonable bounds or it if be some men who are reacting too narrowly to those feminists who have pushed the topic out of reasonable bounds (at the expense of missing the better parts), but it's certainly a mess right now. Or maybe it's always been a mess.

Gary, sorry but that is not what I meant.
Men who can't abandon the macho stereotype are victims too. Feminists would like the opposite sex to free their more feminine natures, so they are less stupidly macho.

Sorry. I wasn't insinuating anything about what you meant. I was simply commenting or reflecting tangentially.

Okay Gary I understand.

[Walker]

Feminists aim to liberate both women and men from gender stereotyping in work, politics, and the home.

The less discussed stereotype that confounds many men is that men must be stronger than women not simply more muscular but also more successful in the world that measures success in wealth. There are signs that traditionally feminine virtues are
gaining popular appeal, but sadly not in sufficient force to affect the delegates in Glasgow.

Consider that …

When all the ornaments are stripped away, what’s left is a woman who naturally makes herself appealing to men, and a man who naturally makes himself appealing to women. There’s all kinds of variations of this theme such as the same-sex relationships and the alphabet that has constructed. And then there’s interpretations of what’s actually appealing. But at the root, attracting what's desired is programmed into the individual for the sake of continuing the species.

So, what is the image that women project? Softness, gentleness, nurturing … all the well-known tropes. What does this mean? It means that women are attracting men with what men like. The toughest nail-chewing natural athlete of a he-man actually likes soft down comforters, warm socks, hot comfort food in the winter, fuzzy pajamas and bunny slippers, … well, hyperbole isn’t necessary, all the softness that women are tell the tale. You see the point. Macho Men like the soft and comfortable things in life. This is why women surround themselves with such things and project that image, and make themselves soft with all kinds of potions and elixirs ... and camera filters. The hard voice can soften to a purr because that's what men like, the softness of the world.

This obviously leads to the conclusion that it’s women who like the macho, because that’s the innate image that men project. It’s why you use a green filter for male black and white portraits. The filter brings out the rough macho grain in a man’s skin, and women like that. Men prefer soft cashmere like high-key lighting with a red filter, for old-school black and white portraits of women. Women are attracted to sandpaper, sharp edges, hard muscles, and an uncompromising will stronger than steel.

That obvious conclusion redefines macho and feminine, but do you think it holds any water, or does it sufficiently put a dent into preconceptions?

[Walker]

... continued.

Supporting evidence:

Pop Art* that reflects the culture, as a product of what’s allowed to be purchased, needs some truth in it to enjoy wild commercial success, needs to express some inner revelations that get past the pop gatekeepers. For example, a woman’s Criminal, and a Man’s Desperado. One is unblinking realist, and the other one is a romantic.


aka folk art

[Belinda]

Walker, the urge to sex is powerful, but the urge to freedom and love trumps the urge to sex.

[Immanuel Can]

...animosity with feminism....

Did we ever decide which "Feminism" we were actually talking about?

Because there are certainly some versions of Feminism that "embrace open hostility" against all things masculine.

[Belinda]

...animosity with feminism....

Did we ever decide which "Feminism" we were actually talking about?

Because there are certainly some versions of Feminism that "embrace open hostility" against all things masculine.

That is a short sighted sort of 'feminism'.

It stands to reason that if the disempowerment of females is removed then females can become honorary males, and males can become honorary females.

Gender division causes a lot of wastage of talent and productivity.

[Immanuel Can]

...animosity with feminism....

Did we ever decide which "Feminism" we were actually talking about?

Because there are certainly some versions of Feminism that "embrace open hostility" against all things masculine.

That is a short sighted sort of 'feminism'.

Not at all. It's only to point out that "Feminism" means many different things. And beyond doubt, there are some wings of that movement that are truly man-hating in every respect.

It stands to reason that if the disempowerment of females is removed then females can become honorary males, and males can become honorary females.

Obviously untrue. That's like saying, "If we remove disempowerment, women will all stand 6' 4" and weigh 250 lbs." One could wish for it forever, and will never see it come about, no matter what one does.

Gender division causes a lot of wastage of talent and productivity.

No, unfair discrimination does that. But reasonable understanding of women's specialness is something that some wings of Feminism promote, instead of promoting the idea that women ought to try to become men.

When Feminism has reached it's lunatic point is when it promotes the idea that an admiral who was born a man is the best "woman" for the job.

[Belinda]

It stands to reason that if the disempowerment of females is removed then females can become honorary males, and males can become honorary females.

Obviously untrue. That's like saying, "If we remove disempowerment, women will all stand 6' 4" and weigh 250 lbs." One could wish for it forever, and will never see it come about, no matter what one does.

That is an invalid comparison. For modern man, musculature and smaller bones can be equalised by technology. Child care can be equalised by means of nurseries or public breast feeding and nappy changing facilities.

Gender division causes a lot of wastage of talent and productivity.

No, unfair discrimination does that. But reasonable understanding of women's specialness is something that some wings of Feminism promote, instead of promoting the idea that women ought to try to become men.

Feminism exists for getting rid of unfair discrimination!

When Feminism has reached it's lunatic point is when it promotes the idea that an admiral who was born a man is the best "woman" for the job.

Person, Manny, person.

[Immanuel Can]

It stands to reason that if the disempowerment of females is removed then females can become honorary males, and males can become honorary females.

Obviously untrue. That's like saying, "If we remove disempowerment, women will all stand 6' 4" and weigh 250 lbs." One could wish for it forever, and will never see it come about, no matter what one does.

That is an invalid comparison. For modern man, musculature and smaller bones can be equalised by technology.

Actually, no they can't. I have no idea where you got that idea, but it's not true. You can't "technologically" make a man into a woman, nor can you do more than cripple growth in men; you can't technologically ramp up a woman into being a man.

You can mangle with chemicals: you can't change the nature of male and female.

Feminism exists for getting rid of unfair discrimination!

First wave, yes; second wave, and third wave, no. And Radical Feminism, definitely not.

When Feminism has reached it's lunatic point is when it promotes the idea that an admiral who was born a man is the best "woman" for the job.

Person, Manny, person.

They aren't calling him a "person," B. They're trying to tell us he's a "woman."

But do you believe that? Do you believe that the dude in the admiral's dress is actually a woman? And are you content for the best "woman" to be a man?

Think, B. Think about what that means...for you, for your daughter(s) or for other women.

[Walker]

Walker, the urge to sex is powerful, but the urge to freedom and love trumps the urge to sex.

The urge is powerful when sex is a verb, and plenty of folks sacrifice the urge to freedom to the accountability of marriage, where fantasies about love meet reality.

When sex is a noun, it affects apprehension of reality that manifests as predilections, as introduced above.

These predilections are explained as samskaras, in some traditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samskara_ ... hilosophy)