Man enough

[polymoog]

Why do you think there's no natural selection at play here?

its complicated, but why do you think women are having a hard time finding real men in an era of BPA and estrogen mimicking compounds? thats no natural selection-- this is artificial genetic interference.
the introduction of plastics and BPA has dropped male T levels to an all time low. women who seek real men are having a hard time finding them. this phenomenon feeds into other NWO agendas which arent relevant to this discussion, but many women who would prefer a masculine man may have to settle for the soy type. this also starts touching upon politics as many low T men are liberal, and although i dont want to go in that direction, a women who is on the far left will have no other mates in which to select when shes surrounded by low T boys.

IDK what soy face looks like, and that sounds kinda racist BTW.

The Truth About Soy Face

 

[Drifter]

As a woman, I disagree.

Why? Their biggest fear is literally being turned into women. Never mind that in this whole liberal bull women have predominantly been the ones taking damage (I.e. the creation of the word "terfs" targeting women who disagree with TRAs as term describing a group hated by both liberal and conservative men).

 

[Drifter]

why are you on this thread when you should be making all of us sandwiches? now get going!
(cut the crusts off for maes.)

Funny.

 

[Orwell's mentor]

Why? Their biggest fear is literally being turned into women. Never mind that in ths whole liberal bull women have predominantly been the ones taking damage (I.e. the creation of the word "terfs" as being hated by both liberal and conservative men).

I don't want men turning into women either, it's unnatural and devolutionary. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and understand it's detrimental to societies. I'm not interested in discussing this from the political spectre, as it's shallow.

There's a reason why the phrase "tall, dark and handsome" exists.

 

[polymoog]

Why? Their biggest fear is literally being turned into women.

a woman is everything a man is not. and vice versa. thats why both sexes are attracted to one another; that why we are complementary and fill in the niches and provide for the abilities/behaviors/innate skills that each sex is missing.
weve been over this already. yes-- no healthy man would want to be turned into a woman.

 

[Drifter]

I don't want men turning into women either, it's unnatural and devolutionary. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and understand it's detrimental to societies. I'm not interested in discussing this from the political spectre, as it's shallow.

There's a reason why the phrase "tall, dark and handsome" exists.

No, there's nothing wong with acknowledging the difference between the sexes. The only problem I have is when feminity is considered the default of a lack masculinity I.e. "You hit like a girl", "dont act effeminate its beneath you" etc. It would be one thing if femininity were treated with the same respect as masculinity but it's not. It's never been.

 

[Drifter]

a woman is everything a man is not. and vice versa. thats why both sexes are attracted to one another; that why we are complementary and fill in the niches and provide for the abilities/behaviors/innate skills that each sex is missing.
weve been over this already. yes-- no healthy man would want to be turned into a woman.

Yeah we been through this where you chickened out of replying becase you couldnt formulate a rebuttal against male affinity and preference for the same sex. But ok.

 

[lightseeker]

No, there's nothing wong with acknowledging the difference between the sexes. The only problem I have is when feminity is considered the default of a lack masculinity I.e. "You hit like a girl", "dont act effeminate its beneath you" etc. It would be one thing if femininity were treated with the same respect as masculinity but it's not. It's never been.

For femininity to be treated with respect youd have to aknowledge that there are inherent and natural feminine characteristics and thus ways of being. Hitting/violence most people would exclude from that. Nurture, sweetness, love, care, empathy, understanding, growth, creation, beauty, would be positive feminine characteristics. Manipulation, gossip, control, overbearing, envy, spite would be negative feminine characteristics. On that basis I and most men respect and cherish femininity,
or would you contend that there is nothing inherent in femininity? If that’s the case, how could it be respected?

 

[Drifter]

For femininity to be treated with respect youd have to aknowledge that there are inherent and natural feminine characteristics and thus ways of being. Hitting/violence most people would exclude from that. Nurture, sweetness, love, care, empathy, understanding, growth, creation, beauty, would be positive feminine characteristics. Manipulation, gossip, control, overbearing, envy, spite would be negative feminine characteristics. On that basis I and most men respect and cherish femininity,
or would you contend that there is nothing inherent in femininity? If that’s the case, how could it be respected?

You're deliberately misrepresenting what I just said. I never obfuscated a difference between the sexes. It exists and ideally should be equitably complementary. Though there is an incredible amount of overlap between male and female traits and how much of what is considered feminine or masculine is cultural? My point was that men throughout history have conceptualized femininity as a mere lack of masculinity, not something beautiful and worth cherishing in its own right. Maleness has been considered the default. Maybe that's the biggest mistake of third wave feminism. These women were brainwashed into believing the only way to gain respect and influence was to appropriate male domains and traits. I wonder why???

 

[lightseeker]

You're deliberately misrepresenting what I just said. I never obfuscated a difference between the sexes. It exists and ideally should be equitably complementary. Though there is an incredible amount of overlap between male and female traits. My point was that men throughout history have conceptualized femininity as a mere lack of masculinity, not something beautiful and worth cherishing in its own right. Maleness has been considered the default. Maybe that's the biggest mistake of the wave feminism. These women were brainwashed into believing the only way to gain respect and influence was to appropriate male domains and traits. I order why???

I’d agree with your conclusion but would put forth to you that the only time femininity has been denigrated has been in the modern day by 3rd and 4th wave feminists. Throughout history women were protected by men, not sent off to war like in modern day or literally tried to be turned into men like modern trannys. Men and women functioning in harmony for hundreds of years is not a denigration of femininity, even if women werent commanding armies or cities as often, although of course they did at times. there are women that made history being women like Emily dickinson or Jane Austin come to mind as well as Joan of Arc or various monarchs. What would be different in history if your view of how women would fit into society was the case?

 

[Orwell's mentor]

No, there's nothing wong with acknowledging the difference between the sexes. The only problem I have is when feminity is considered the default of a lack masculinity I.e. "You hit like a girl", "dont act effeminate its beneath you" etc. It would be one thing if femininity were treated with the same respect as masculinity but it's not. It's never been.

Who cares? Seriously! I've heard that phrase, and I find it funny because there's a bit of truth to it. Being feminine is understanding and appreciating the fact there are differences between the two sexes. I don't have the brawn that men do and never will, and it should stay that way.

Also, I don't spend my time thinking about what being feminine means. I'm a woman so my thoughts and actions are mine. Whether someone thinks they're masculine or feminine is on them, not me. The same can be said for respect.

 

[Drifter]

I’d agree with your conclusion but would put forth to you that the only time femininity has been denigrated has been in the modern day by 3rd and 4th wave feminists. Throughout history women were protected by men, not sent off to war like in modern day or literally tried to be turned into men like modern trannys. Men and women functioning in harmony for hundreds of years is not a denigration of femininity, even if women werent commanding armies or cities as often, although of course they did at times. there are women that made history being women like Emily dickinson or Jane Austin come to mind as well as Joan of Arc or various monarchs. What would be different in history if your view of how women would fit into society was the case?

I have to assume you havent done much reading into history then. Real feminists do not denigrate stereotypical models of femininity. They only ask that expressions of womanhood in all forms be as respected as manhood. And who were women protected from? Other men? If they were legally prevented from being educated and employed until relatively recently in human history. And yes, there are women who did amazing things despite being legally restricted. There would probably be more if they were invested in as much as sons.

 

[Drifter]

Who cares? Seriously! I've heard that phrase, and I find it funny because there's a bit of truth to it. Being feminine is understanding and appreciating the fact there are differences between the two sexes. I don't have the brawn that men do and never will, and it should stay that way.

Also, I don't spend my time thinking about what being feminine means. I'm a woman so my thoughts and actions are mine. Whether someone thinks they're masculine or feminine is on them, not me. The same can be said for respect.

You might not care but many women and girls do. It's not about comparing themselves to men, its about not being used as an insult just for being female. Good on you for not giving a shit. But there are plenty of young girls who love being girls but are confused because of how their biology is used as some substandard measure against whch boys are warned to never fall below. Just because you are happily blind to that, don't mean all women and girls are.

 

[lightseeker]

Real feminists do not denigrate stereotypical models of femininity. They only ask that expressions of womanhood in all forms be as respected as manhood. And who were women protected from? Other men? If they were legally prevented from being educated and employed until relatively recently in human history. And yes, there are women who did amazing things despite being legally restricted. There would probably be more if they were invested in as much as sons.

It’s only in retrospect with the comfort of modern life that we can say what if women were able to be wood workers or cathedral architects more often. Facts of life are what they are, and women were always focused on child rearing. It would be unnatural for it to be otherwise. People talk about how women didn’t have the right to vote until 1920 but forget that men didn’t have the right to vote until about 100 years before that either. Life was more about nessessity and less about choice until modern day, where things changed anyways. Would you say modern life or natural life is better? Because basically all you’re saying is, what if modern life couldve happened 500 years ago

 

[Maes17]

Why do you think there's no natural selection at play here? Boys and girls all seem smaller these days, but I don't consider it a bad thing. Being big invites a whole other host of injuries and ailments.

I agree about eating right. I think mind control is mostly a psychological phenomenon.


IDK what soy face looks like, and that sounds kinda racist BTW.

It's probably not the best example, but on the show "Naked and Afraid XL" it's always the laziest people who have the easiest time surviving. That happens because the lazy people aren't expending any energy, and when they do they are more efficient about it. So that ties into what I was saying about how being big adds so many new problems.

Ultimately the shallowness you brought up is the real roadblock to fighting tyranny. Like if you start giving men the best health education, the best food, and all the best exercises it won't mean anything if they all have the depth of a puddle.

Define being big. If it’s obese big, yes that’s health problems.

However having muscle mass and knowing how to train properly where the muscle supports the bones/tendons instead of glamor muscle is something entirely different

 

[Maes17]

why are you on this thread when you should be making all of us sandwiches? now get going!
(cut the crusts off for maes.)

Why you assume I don’t like crust? You prejudice asshole

 

[Drifter]

It’s only in retrospect with the comfort of modern life that we can say what if women were able to be wood workers or cathedral architects more often. Facts of life are what they are, and women were always focused on child rearing. It would be unnatural for it to be otherwise. People talk about how women didn’t have the right to vote until 1920 but forget that men didn’t have the right to vote until about 100 years before that either. Life was more about nessessity and less about choice until modern day, where things changed anyways. Would you say modern life or natural life is better? Because basically all you’re saying is, what if modern life couldve happened 500 years ago

Are wood working and cathedral architecture the only things you can think of? Again, you might want to do some digging into some of the roles women filled throughout history. Women as primarily focused on childbearing is such a flawed concept. Motherhood is beautiful, dont get me wrong, but it's hardly the FULL embodiment of who and what a woman is. Children eventally grow up. What happens then? Do women just stop being productive members of society? What about women who cant have kids? Moreover, does that diminish the role of active fathers in the lives of their children? Because the same types who cast women primarily as child-rearers also decry the ills in the world as being the result of the absence of strong father figures. So pick one. How are women primarily destined for child rearing and men for everything else only for men to ultimately have the more significant role in their children's lives? It cant be both.

 

[Maes17]

In conclusion politics has turned humans against each other

 

[Drifter]

In conclusion politics has turned humans against each other

It's not politics. Its a superiority complex and a predilection for power grabbing.

 

[lightseeker]

Are wood working and cathedral architecture the only things you can think of? Again, you might want to do some digging into some of the roles women filled throughout history. Women as primarily focused on childbearing is such a flawed concept. Motherhood is beautiful, dont get me wrong, but it's hardly the FULL embodiment of who and what a woman is. Children eventally grow up. What happens then? Do women just stop being productive members of society? What about women who cant have kids? Moreover, does that diminish the role of active fathers in the lives of their children? Because the same types who cast women primarily as child-rearers also decry the ills in the world as being the result of the absence of strong father figures. So pick one. How are women primarily destined for child rearing and men for everything else only for men to ultimately have the more significant role in their children's lives? It cant be both.

No obviously women used to make crafts, rugs, clothing, prepare food, have roles in the community, farms, ways of life. But to suggest that they shouldve joined the mideval workforce, is like barbaric. Or the industrial age work force. What a horror story that would be. I’m sure they were glad they didn’t have to. But again, how would women’s roles change if your vision of history came true? They would give birth and then leave to do other things? Or just stop giving birth so often? Again, nessessity and the facts of life are what they are. Natural life has a certain harmony, it’s only we that can theorize about how we’d change nature, and id say in modern tImes people are a lot more unhappy because of this, not having a natural course of life or role, but theorizing about it instead.