Cantata, you might be right, but I think *some* people just don't like it when others don't fit into their typical idea of what the genders should be doing.
Perhaps. But I would still argue that the root of that feeling is suspicion of the feminine.
Also, it's probably more of a social no-no to mock a woman, than it is to mock a man (that's not to say females aren't mocked). You can probably probably push the boundaries a bit further when mocking a male. In the same way you can probably get away with mocking white people more than black people. For instance, no one really complained when the film "White men can't jump" was released. I'm not sure if you would have been able to get away with a similar film called "Black men can't swim" without any complaints.
That's because women have had their liberation and women haven't.
"Being a real man" is a credit system!!!! I know this to be true.
Absolutely.
You assume liberals and progressives have won creating a social order. That house of cards is tumbling as nature will not be mocked for long.
Please try to talk sense, PC_F.
The 60's style feminist is well-defined. Who you kidding?
Nope, still irrelevant; try again.
I know the difference between a water buffalo and a gazelle.
Wow, out of the left-field.
Still meaningless babble, though. I look forward to a day when you respond to what a post actually says instead of what you'd like it to say.
Cantata ... it is a truism, but sometimes truisms can be forgotten and it may go some way to explaining certain aspects of masculinity, again with the proviso that one is going to accept the Darwinian construct as applicable to the genetic influence on human behaviour.
Let me try and explain. In primates, it appears that sexual selection is exerted on the male. It seems a pretty safe bet that our closest genetic ancestors were the same. In primates, the alpha male keeps his harem by being able and willing to fight any opponent. He will be absolutely ruthless in this and he must be supremely dominant. No weakness can be shown.
Over generations the genes that code for violent, aggressive, promiscuous and ruthless behaviour will be selected for. "The sins of the father will be visited on the sons".
So for a purely genetic explanation of negative masculine characteristics, if one accepts Darwinian theory as applicable to humans, then that's that.
Where it gets interesting is that humans are conscious and rational beings and have a curious habit of attaching ethical judgements to behaviours and their consequences. If one is going to argue from a strictly determinist standpoint then the instrument we use to make such value judgements (let's call it conscience for now) is "made" by our genetic predisposition and our environment (ie, every single influence, conscious or subconscious that we have experienced from the womb to the present moment). This makes such judgements extremely subjective and calls into question what we actually mean when we say that certain masculine or feminine characterisitcs are positive or negative.
It is also one of the reasons why I can't accept determinism.
I don't think you need to reject determinism with this view unless you think there is some absolute truth to value judgements.
I understand the evolutionary basis for various human characteristics and the way the environment acts on these. However, I see both of these in a deterministic light. I also think the existence of our value judgements does not undermine that view, because I regard our value judgements as subjective and as a product of a determined system.
BTW, this is deeply embarressing, but I don't know how to quote somone else's posts (I know; I'm a retard). If anyone can explain how I do this I would be very grateful.
No offence to BlackSabb, but his instructions were rubbish.
To quote your post, I hit the "Quote" button at the bottom of your post, and then I get your post in my edit window with <quote=Oneofthediaspora;49392800> at the beginning and </quote> at the end (with the <>s replaced with []s). The number after the semicolon is the post number. I could omit the post number, and just type <quote=Oneofthediaspora> before your posts, but then the little arrow after "originally posted by Oneofthediaspora", that links to the post I quoted, won't be there.
If you want to put your own remarks between different parts of someone's post, put </quote> (with square brackets instead) after the section you want to address; type your comment after it; and then at the beginning of the next quoted part, cut and paste the <quote=Oneofthediaspora;49392800> from the beginning to the beginning of that part. Wash, rinse, repeat.
If you want to quote several posts in one post, you can hit the multiquote button - the one marked "MQ" at the bottom of posts - on every post you want to quote (the button turns red when it's been added to the quote list), and then on the last one, hit the "Quote" button as usual. You will then get an edit window with all of the posts you selected, in the correct quote tags.
An example of what a post should look like, quoted correctly, with comments in between:
<quote=cantata;49392683>Well, obviously, me being me, my answer to this question sums up my response to your whole post:</quote>
La la la.
<quote=cantata;49392683>"The feminine" is considered much less valuable, important, difficult, worthwhile, praiseworthy, &c. than "the masculine".</quote>
La la la laaaaa.
<quote=cantata;49392683>I wonder what your understanding is. </quote>
Tadaaaa.
