How We Raise Our Daughters - 21st Century [W:87,158,368]

RiverDad said:

Would you teach your sons to be attracted to fat girls?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't TEACH them to be attracted to anyone. I would instill my values in them and let them make their own decisions in that respect.

RiverDad said:

Capster78 wrote "I would teach my daughter to put little value in popularity. To see value in personality over popularity."

I'm reading this comment as though he believes that girls can be taught to change what appeals to them, that their tastes in boys/men are learned. If this is his belief, then can he teach his sons to find fat girls attractive?

Click to expand...

Yes, they can be taught to some degree what to be attracted to. Do you not think society has any effect on what people find attractive. That would be go completely against human nature if you thought that. It is in our genes to take from society what is considered successful or attractive. It is a survival instinct that has existed for hundreds of thousands of years and the reason the human species has thrived. However, in the past 100-500 years, this instinct has become outdated and no longer necessary. Most of us no longer live in a world of lions, tigers and bears. We have moved from evolving physically, to evolving socially. That is what has brought about all the rights movements, the social evolution of society. In that sense, society can change traditional notions of sexuality.

This issue of what young girls find attractive in young boys actually ties into what Goshin and I and others have been stating - respect. A popular boy is a boy who is respected by other boys and girls, but mostly boys. That male respect hierarchy develops early. The popular young boy is a boy who is higher on the pecking order. Girls find popular boys attractive. Women find powerful men attractive. Women find highly respected men attractive.

Click to expand...

While I understand this point, again, we can change this and we need to change this. What women find attractive is based on what others find attractive. That is why being popular makes one attractive. The goal is to change what is popular.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't encourage a girl, or my daughters, to find a heavier man attractive because I don't think that I can shape their natures and change their tastes. What I will do though is shape their social networks as best as I can to close them off to some types of boys and broaden their exposure to other types of young boys. That's within my control.

Click to expand...

All I can tell you is that many times, a young girl will find the very man her father is trying to keep her from, attractive. So a father has to be careful when placing his will on his daughter. The only thing you can really do is instill your values and hope they stick.

And men end up with women who aren't young nor beautiful.

Men seek different things in women than women seek in men. Women will pair up with an overweight man if he has other qualities which appeal to her more than his weight displeases her.

Click to expand...

I think, for most men, currently, their social status dictates what options they have in regaurds to women. Men do all the initiating when it comes to dating and sex. Women do the picking and choosing as to who they deem worthy of their attention. While I think a mans physical attractiveness plays a role, his social status is what initially gets a womans attention. Women key on many things to determine a mans social status. They look for confidence, and signs of success such as the way a man dresses and carries himself.

Men are more conscious of female beauty, youth, body shape than women are of men. Women are more conscious of male status, respect and personality than men are of women. It's women who size men up by their status, their careers, their cars. Men aren't rejecting women because they don't drive the right car or because the woman is in a lower paid career. It's not that the physical objects are important, it's that they're quick and easy signal markers. Women can more easily display their assets compared to men.

Click to expand...

This is what we need to change if we are to level the playing field. Currently, men have no power in a relationship. Women still continue to use their sexual power to leverage power in society which is unchecked because men no longer have a monopoly on social status or wealth. That is why we need to start teaching our daughters to choose their men based not on their social status or wealth, because they can attain that on their own, but on personality. Women, overall, have still refused to change their traditional roles in sex and dating, but are expecting everyone else to change their traditional roles.

And guys who like to walk around in Star Trek uniforms is not an issue for women, right? Women love nerdy nerds just as much as they love Daniel Craig.

Click to expand...

They should.

Nice guys are to young women like fat girls are to young men.



You're a woman, so what stature does a 18 year old boy hold that you'd find attractive? I don't expect women to judge men by the same standard that men judge women. Similarly, Meg Whitman holds absolutely no appeal to me. She's a billionaire, was a powerful CEO of eBay. Her status does zilch for me. Women though seem to be very attracted to powerful and respected men.



The exceptions prove the rule.

Look around at the world. Do you see a lot of men paying to watch Granny Porn? Do you see many 45 year old, mother of 6 women, who are exotic dancers? What you see is men being attracted to very young women, even the old codgers aren't focusing their desire on women the same age, which is why we don't really have big markets for granny porn. 70 year old men still love looking at 20 year old girls.

Click to expand...

Well, I would never expect a man or woman for that matter, to find something not physically attractive, physically attractive.. What needs to change is what we consider attractive.

Gathomas88 said:

It simply happens to be the case that, all things being equal, physical attributes are a lot more important to a man when selecting a sexual partner than they are for women....

Click to expand...

RiverDad said:

It's not an ONLY THIS AND NOTHING ELSE process. It's a matter of how much value is assigned to each.


Exactly so. When a man appreciate the youthful beauty of an 18 year old, or even a 15 year old, girl, he's not thinking about her as relationship and marriage material. He's looking at women, all women, by their appearance...

Click to expand...

Okay. I see where we are now.

I think the difference between me and my points and you two and your points is what we're thinking of as 'attraction'

Attraction (as I'm looking at it) the snag or pull one person feels for another - face to face isn't even needed, it could be written or heard about. It could be anything.

Attraction as you two are referring to it (with some of your posted points) is mostly physical.

Two very different types of attraction. Of course women are physically attracted to certain features, physically. Of course we look at men who hold these physical features. And of course men can find non-physical things to be equally attractive. And men also 'settle' for what they can't have (they might want the Stepford Wife but she doesn't exist, etc)

We don't really seem to be disagreeing on any of this, we just seem to be thinking of 'attraction' for the purpose of this topic in two different ways.

Thus: I'm referring to the physical interests as 'appeal' or 'something to appreciate' - I'm not lumping that in with 'the attraction that holds a couple together' or even 'the spark that gets a relationship going, even if it plummets'

Capster78 said:

Currently, men have no power in a relationship. Women still continue to use their sexual power to leverage power in society which is unchecked because men no longer have a monopoly on social status or wealth.

Click to expand...

Part of me is :wow:

Lots of me is :2funny:

A bit of me is :doh

Then I think you must be :screwy

Which leads to this whole thing being a big old :failpail:

Lursa said:

And hence the start of women as doormats, women who stay in abusive situations struggling to be loved...because she's learned it's 'her fault' she's not worthy of love.

Click to expand...

And men will stay with emotionally and verbally abusive women because they do not feel that they deserve to be respected . We are all losers in the gender war.

Aunt Spiker said:

Okay. I see where we are now.

I think the difference between me and my points and you two and your points is what we're thinking of as 'attraction'

Attraction (as I'm looking at it) the snag or pull one person feels for another - face to face isn't even needed, it could be written or heard about. It could be anything.

Attraction as you two are referring to it (with some of your posted points) is mostly physical.

Two very different types of attraction. Of course women are physically attracted to certain features, physically. Of course we look at men who hold these physical features. And of course men can find non-physical things to be equally attractive. And men also 'settle' for what they can't have (they might want the Stepford Wife but she doesn't exist, etc)

We don't really seem to be disagreeing on any of this, we just seem to be thinking of 'attraction' for the purpose of this topic in two different ways.

Thus: I'm referring to the physical interests as 'appeal' or 'something to appreciate' - I'm not lumping that in with 'the attraction that holds a couple together' or even 'the spark that gets a relationship going, even if it plummets'

Click to expand...

Wait, wait, wait...... are you saying that the men you are responding to are more visually oriented while you are more relationally oriented?!?

YOU SEXIST!!! Gender is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!

:lol: :mrgreen:

Lursa said:

And hence the start of women as doormats, women who stay in abusive situations struggling to be loved...because she's learned it's 'her fault' she's not worthy of love.

Click to expand...

Would women be worse off, if it were socially acceptable to be girls and friends at the same time and simply fornicate us out of any bashfulness or commitment phobia we may have; not only for fun and practice in modern times, but, also to get to know us better.

danielpalos said:

Would women be worse off, if it were socially acceptable to be girls and friends at the same time and simply fornicate us out of any bashfulness or commitment phobia we may have; not only for fun and practice in modern times, but, also to get to know us better.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what this long garbled sentence is asking.

cpwill said:

And men will stay with emotionally and verbally abusive women because they do not feel that they deserve to be respected . We are all losers in the gender war.

Click to expand...

So then does raising boys to be respected work or not? (rhetorical of course but it was your statement and I'm not sure why you just wrote something opposite)

My point was to not set daughters up from birth to be vulnerable.

cpwill said:

And men will stay with emotionally and verbally abusive women because they do not feel that they deserve to be respected . We are all losers in the gender war.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

So then does raising boys to be respected work or not? (rhetorical of course but it was your statement and I'm not sure why you just wrote something opposite)

My point was to not set daughters up from birth to be vulnerable.

Click to expand...

Children should be raised to believe that should both be loved and respected and treat others with that same measure.

No debate.

Our society is built on this concept - as many societies have been for centuries. We cleave to things like 'the golden rule' for a reason.

But like all 'guidelines' - trying to encourage the behavior and belief is one thing, what people actually come to feel due to life experiences is another.

Lursa said:

And hence the start of women as doormats, women who stay in abusive situations struggling to be loved...because she's learned it's 'her fault' she's not worthy of love.

Click to expand...

Spousal abuse isn't a matter of love or respect. Abuse in a relationship can go in all directions (verbal, physical, emotional). This is a matter of tolerance (tolerate the behavior and it will continue) and it is also a matter of maturity (immature twits beat their wives or berate their husbands). This is why abuse is a cycle.

However: The modern concept of 'only wanting to be in a perfect marriage' and 'never having arguments or disagreements' is modern passive bull**** and doesn't exist. People are flawed and human.

Often things that aren't systemic, chronic abuse are classified as such when they shouldn't be. This has led to an abundance of people who are unable to work through differences (because they claim that having problems for a while is 'abuse' and a matter of 'disrespect' or 'not loving me enough' when it's nothing more than having a normal, human issue)

In an effort to address physical spousal abuse the verbal and emotional abuse (that more often comes from women) is ignored or diminished.
We've also created a society where physical violence by women against men is treated like it doesn't exist - often putting the man between a rock and a hard place. If he says anything one way or another, if he's hit first and strikes back to protect himself, he'll be seen as the abuser even when he's not.

Thus: many women stay with men who show abusive behaviors because they're rooted in reality. Reality: men are infallible and imperfect, just like women. Reality: Just because someone resorts to physical violence to express anger on occasion (like they'r encouraged to do from infancy in our pro-angst society) doesn't mean they're so corrupt they can't A) See that they're wrong, B) Stop, C) Seek professional help and change.

People's criticism of the book 50 Shades of Grey is where this can be seen: If someone has emotional issues and needs psychological help - if he decides to channel his issues physically (even in a strictly controlled environment with limits in place) then the idea of caring and wanting to help him get better equates the woman with being a pathetic, self-disrespecting, imbecilic moron.

But women getting physical with their spouse? Most people don't care - or even encourage it.

There's nothing wrong with seeing that someone is going through a difficult time and struggling to cope - and then committing yourself to helping them because you think they're worth it, they actually mean enough as a human being to care about.

If someone helps the homeless or tries to save slaves and they are injured or die in the process people think they're heroic. But put that type of person into a marriage, make her a female, and have her helping her husband that she loves and then she's seen as a pathetic, self-disrespecting, imbecilic moron who can't think for herself or who is so blind she doesn't see the situation she's in.

See: in an effort to empower women we've created a society in which every little tiny thing is considered abuse and very few people are willing to admit or accept that there's a difference. Good intentions: but we haven't quite sorted it all out. It's just gone from one extreme *to another*

Now: it's commonly accepted that if you think you're in an abusive relationship (one fight, one argument, one restrained almost smack) you should respect yourself - leave him, take the kids - and then what? Live in the ****ing slums as a single mother on government assistance.

What in the hell type of self-respect or sense does that make? Our society is still so off-kilter. We should be supporting people who want to work out their issues, not shoving those women into Secton 8 housing where their kids are more likely to end up being shot in the head by a driveby.

Sorry - but when I was in that type of 'choose one or the other' situation a long long time ago the last place I wanted to be was in Apartment 2B on Jefferson Street for another MOMENT. The neighborhood was more dangerous.

Lursa said:

So then does raising boys to be respected work or not? (rhetorical of course but it was your statement and I'm not sure why you just wrote something opposite)

My point was to not set daughters up from birth to be vulnerable.

Click to expand...

I think you are misreading me then. Men and Women both need both love and respect, but women (generally) need more to feel loved while men (generally ) need more to feel respected. When they poll couples in arguments, for example, women usually feel unloved, while men usually feel disrespected, and each makes both of them angry - making men more likely to act in ways that come across as unloving and women more likely to act in ways that come across as disrespectful. Both men and women need to know that they are worthy independent of their partners, which does not obviate the requirement for the partner to make sure that their spouse feels worthy.

Does that make more sense?

Lursa said:

My point was to not set daughters up from birth to be vulnerable.

Click to expand...

This is an intriguing sentence. I have no idea what you mean, but the sentence sure catches the eye of readers.

RiverDad said:

This is an intriguing sentence. I have no idea what you mean, but the sentence sure catches the eye of readers.

Click to expand...

A lot of women have come to believe that:

A) If they're in a tense marital or relationship environment then:
B) They're not being respected.
C) (They might think that) Not being respected or in an ideal relationship means they are vulnerable, weak, or do not respect their self.
D) (They might think that) Wanting to be loved (even though that's the basis of humanity) is not a good enough of a reason to be with someone if that person is not ideal or perfect.
E) (They might think that) Wanting to be in a relationship, even if it's not ideal, equates them to seeing themselves as unworthy of respect, dependent on the other person, and inferior.

In truth: a bunch of imperfect women expect more form their partners than they do themselves and 'wanting to be loved' is seen as a bad thing - the equivalent of throwing yourself under the bus.

Aunt Spiker said:

In truth: a bunch of imperfect women expect more form their partners than they do themselves and 'wanting to be loved' is seen as a bad thing - the equivalent of throwing yourself under the bus.

Click to expand...

So if we take off the feminist propaganda glasses, Oprah transforms into one of the greatest villains in the last half century due to her taking a wrecking ball to women's lives and filling their heads up with nonsense which has been used to destroy millions of lives.

RiverDad said:

So if we take off the feminist propaganda glasses, Oprah transforms into one of the greatest villains in the last half century due to her taking a wrecking ball to women's lives and filling their heads up with nonsense which has been used to destroy millions of lives.

Click to expand...

Seriously? This is but a guess, but I see you as a sixty to seventy year old man who thinks "Leave it to Beaver" was reality TV. Granted, our culture and Country have changed and adapted to things that have occurred, but isn't that what it was designed to do hundreds of years ago?
I am an old fogey to my Granddaughter.....but at least she thinks I'm pretty cool....where are you in this reality?

RiverDad said:

So if we take off the feminist propaganda glasses, Oprah transforms into one of the greatest villains in the last half century due to her taking a wrecking ball to women's lives and filling their heads up with nonsense which has been used to destroy millions of lives.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a matter of 'feminism gone too far' though. (though that is a contributing factor in part)

In some ways our society fosters the belief that love is diminished, devalued. Just: people are told it doesn't matter so much. Many men refer to marriage as being '***** whipped' :shrug:

The idea of wanting to be with someone - especially if they're not 'perfect' - is negated to the point of it being seen as a blight or a personal flaw if you believe in it.

Back to the more specific fact of the modern woman (I think labeling it a product of 'feminism' isn't quite spot on, there's more to it than that): Every woman in my life upholds the belief that if they're ****ed up, have issues (etc) their partner should love them anyway. But if the man is equally ****ed up or has issues (because they default to the idea that men can be physically stronger and are more prone to violence) they're less likely or willing to give that man the same consideration.

Men who struggle with emotional, psychological, and neurological disorders are treated more harshly by both men and women than *women* who have these same exact issues (regardless of how they choose to act out).

I don't think it's 'feminism' in a way - I think *some* of it is 'over the top feminism' and *some* of it is just plain old society having skewed values.

tecoyah said:

Seriously? This is but a guess, but I see you as a sixty to seventy year old man who thinks "Leave it to Beaver" was reality TV. Granted, our culture and Country have changed and adapted to things that have occurred, but isn't that what it was designed to do hundreds of years ago?

Click to expand...

Cultural change is not like a hurricane striking randomly, what can be changed in one direction can also be changed into another direction.

Some things though are difficult to undo. Liberals have totally ****ed this nation with their imposition of multiculturalism and it's going to destroy us. We can't put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, we can't go back to the Leave it to Beaver days, not as a united nation. Sex roles though are far more amenable to change. Look at how the daughters of feminist mothers often reject the feminist lifestyle. We regularly see old shrew feminists writing in the popular press about how they fought for freedoms and how disappointed they are that this generation is slipping back to old ways.

RiverDad said:

Cultural change is not like a hurricane striking randomly, what can be changed in one direction can also be changed into another direction.

Some things though are difficult to undo. Liberals have totally ****ed this nation with their imposition of multiculturalism and it's going to destroy us. We can't put Humpty-Dumpty back together again, we can't go back to the Leave it to Beaver days, not as a united nation. Sex roles though are far more amenable to change. Look at how the daughters of feminist mothers often reject the feminist lifestyle. We regularly see old shrew feminists writing in the popular press about how they fought for freedoms and how disappointed they are that this generation is slipping back to old ways.

Click to expand...

The problem is the shift that's happened over the last 100+ years in regard to the concept of feminism.

Originally: feminism was meant to free the woman from unfair treatment and practices that kept her back when she, also, had to support a family (etc): Employment, education, basic rights (like voting and being able to patent an invention). Most people don't have a problem with this.

However, in the attempt (somewhere around the 50's - 70's) to bolster women's lib, etc - everything essential "to women" began to get looked down on. Slowly, for a group of activists, it turned into an "anti-male, anti-family, anti-feminine" beliefs.

And so I don't consider it a problem of 'feminism' in general . . . but it's a problem regarding 'over-active feminists' or 'over the top feminism' - I wish we could peg it with a more appropriate term so the older version of feminism is left alone, and the new version can be referred to *specifically* without causing confusion.

We're at a point where a lot of girls don't understand what feminism WAS. Instead, many women associate the term with bald-headed loud-mouthed anti-male lesbians and other extreme figures who (every now and then) take a spotlight with their attitudes and behaviors. (etc).

Shrew is good - I like that. Because these are the ones that really dig into women in regard to their life choices (like stay at home moms - we get the pointed end of the stick quite a bit).

These shrews don't care about 'equality' - they want 'superiority' and 'negation' of any value they associate with (their version of) 'male dominance'

Aunt Spiker said:

The problem is the shift that's happened over the last 100+ years in regard to the concept of feminism.

Originally: feminism was meant to free the woman from unfair treatment and practices that kept her back when she, also, had to support a family (etc): Employment, education, basic rights (like voting and being able to patent an invention). Most people don't have a problem with this.

However, in the attempt (somewhere around the 50's - 70's) to bolster women's lib, etc - everything essential "to women" began to get looked down on. Slowly, for a group of activists, it turned into an "anti-male, anti-family, anti-feminine" beliefs.

And so I don't consider it a problem of 'feminism' in general . . . but it's a problem regarding 'over-active feminists' or 'over the top feminism' - I wish we could peg it with a more appropriate term so the older version of feminism is left alone, and the new version can be referred to *specifically* without causing confusion.

We're at a point where a lot of girls don't understand what feminism WAS. Instead, many women associate the term with bald-headed loud-mouthed anti-male lesbians and other extreme figures who (every now and then) take a spotlight with their attitudes and behaviors. (etc).

Shrew is good - I like that. Because these are the ones that really dig into women in regard to their life choices (like stay at home moms - we get the pointed end of the stick quite a bit).

These shrews don't care about 'equality' - they want 'superiority' and 'negation' of any value they associate with (their version of) 'male dominance'

Click to expand...

The older feminism is just equalism. They weren't fighting for "women's rights" but for equal rights for women. A man can have equal rights and so can a woman. A man can't have "women's rights" though, so it seems more appropriate that a movement dedicated to creating special rights just for women be called feminism.

Aunt Spiker said:

Okay. I see where we are now.

I think the difference between me and my points and you two and your points is what we're thinking of as 'attraction'

Attraction (as I'm looking at it) the snag or pull one person feels for another - face to face isn't even needed, it could be written or heard about. It could be anything.

Attraction as you two are referring to it (with some of your posted points) is mostly physical.

Two very different types of attraction. Of course women are physically attracted to certain features, physically. Of course we look at men who hold these physical features. And of course men can find non-physical things to be equally attractive. And men also 'settle' for what they can't have (they might want the Stepford Wife but she doesn't exist, etc)

We don't really seem to be disagreeing on any of this, we just seem to be thinking of 'attraction' for the purpose of this topic in two different ways.

Thus: I'm referring to the physical interests as 'appeal' or 'something to appreciate' - I'm not lumping that in with 'the attraction that holds a couple together' or even 'the spark that gets a relationship going, even if it plummets'

Click to expand...

This does basically seem to be the case. As I said before, however, the only thing I would point out here is that the "physical" aspect of attraction tends to be a lot more important to men than it is to women in general.

This reality is probably a large part of the reason for our miscommunication here in the first place. Men and women simply don't look at the topic of attraction in the same way in the first place.

Men tend to assess and judge potential sexual targets on latent "desirability" very quickly, and then work off of that initial impression until something else comes along to change our minds (an obnoxious personality, hideous voice, incompatible values, etca). Women are generally a lot harder to impress, and will make judgments based more upon the "complete package" than just initial appearances.

Aunt Spiker said:

Children should be raised to believe that should both be loved and respected and treat others with that same measure.

No debate.

Our society is built on this concept - as many societies have been for centuries. We cleave to things like 'the golden rule' for a reason.

But like all 'guidelines' - trying to encourage the behavior and belief is one thing, what people actually come to feel due to life experiences is another.



Spousal abuse isn't a matter of love or respect. Abuse in a relationship can go in all directions (verbal, physical, emotional). This is a matter of tolerance (tolerate the behavior and it will continue) and it is also a matter of maturity (immature twits beat their wives or berate their husbands). This is why abuse is a cycle.

However: The modern concept of 'only wanting to be in a perfect marriage' and 'never having arguments or disagreements' is modern passive bull**** and doesn't exist. People are flawed and human.

Often things that aren't systemic, chronic abuse are classified as such when they shouldn't be. This has led to an abundance of people who are unable to work through differences (because they claim that having problems for a while is 'abuse' and a matter of 'disrespect' or 'not loving me enough' when it's nothing more than having a normal, human issue)

In an effort to address physical spousal abuse the verbal and emotional abuse (that more often comes from women) is ignored or diminished.
We've also created a society where physical violence by women against men is treated like it doesn't exist - often putting the man between a rock and a hard place. If he says anything one way or another, if he's hit first and strikes back to protect himself, he'll be seen as the abuser even when he's not.

Thus: many women stay with men who show abusive behaviors because they're rooted in reality. Reality: men are infallible and imperfect, just like women. Reality: Just because someone resorts to physical violence to express anger on occasion (like they'r encouraged to do from infancy in our pro-angst society) doesn't mean they're so corrupt they can't A) See that they're wrong, B) Stop, C) Seek professional help and change.

People's criticism of the book 50 Shades of Grey is where this can be seen: If someone has emotional issues and needs psychological help - if he decides to channel his issues physically (even in a strictly controlled environment with limits in place) then the idea of caring and wanting to help him get better equates the woman with being a pathetic, self-disrespecting, imbecilic moron.

But women getting physical with their spouse? Most people don't care - or even encourage it.

There's nothing wrong with seeing that someone is going through a difficult time and struggling to cope - and then committing yourself to helping them because you think they're worth it, they actually mean enough as a human being to care about.

If someone helps the homeless or tries to save slaves and they are injured or die in the process people think they're heroic. But put that type of person into a marriage, make her a female, and have her helping her husband that she loves and then she's seen as a pathetic, self-disrespecting, imbecilic moron who can't think for herself or who is so blind she doesn't see the situation she's in.

See: in an effort to empower women we've created a society in which every little tiny thing is considered abuse and very few people are willing to admit or accept that there's a difference. Good intentions: but we haven't quite sorted it all out. It's just gone from one extreme *to another*

Now: it's commonly accepted that if you think you're in an abusive relationship (one fight, one argument, one restrained almost smack) you should respect yourself - leave him, take the kids - and then what? Live in the ****ing slums as a single mother on government assistance.

What in the hell type of self-respect or sense does that make? Our society is still so off-kilter. We should be supporting people who want to work out their issues, not shoving those women into Secton 8 housing where their kids are more likely to end up being shot in the head by a driveby.

Sorry - but when I was in that type of 'choose one or the other' situation a long long time ago the last place I wanted to be was in Apartment 2B on Jefferson Street for another MOMENT. The neighborhood was more dangerous.

Click to expand...

Well said. :applaud

Modern "values" often tend to be misguided at best, and actively harmful at worst.

Aunt Spiker said:

IMen who struggle with emotional, psychological, and neurological disorders are treated more harshly by both men and women than *women* who have these same exact issues (regardless of how they choose to act out).

Click to expand...

To be fair, some of that may very well be hardwired.

By nature, women are wired to seek out men who can serve as protectors and providers. Men also tend to be rather protective of women, whereas they are wired to compete with other men.

A weak woman can still breed, and was never really expected to "provide" for anyone in the first place. As such, she'll get a bit of slack in this regard, and may even receive a certain amount of "coddling" regardless of how taxing it might be for those around her.

A weak man, however, is basically viewed as being worthless by men and women alike, as he can neither provide for females, nor effectively compete with other males. He will tend to be treated with a certain degree of contempt as such.

In raw, animal, terms, he basically will have taken on "omega male" status.

opendebate said:

I know. I was playing along. Should have thrown in a wink I guess.

Click to expand...

You finally understand me!!

Capster78 said:

I would teach my daughter to put little value in popularity. To see value in personality over popularity.

Click to expand...

There are different types of popular. I was very popular. I wasn't popular like a jerk jock that was cool... I was popular because I was nice and funny and I guess that made me cool. Regardless... being popular is a good thing. It is what you do with that popularity that matters. I teach my daughters to get along with everybody possible as long as those people merit the kindness. That is a type of popularity... getting along with, or being friends with, as many people as you want to. It was easy to go hang with the jocks one day, the drama kids the next, the nerds another day... etc. It was fun.

What problem would it cause? It teaches her that she determines who she ends up with and not to allow guys to determine who she ends up with. It also opens up her options. Instead of just taking what comes to her, she could put her own values into the process instead of others placing their values on her.

Click to expand...

It might not create any problems... but if we are talking about going up to a guy she does not know then it could create problems, as I stated. I assume we are talking about asking people out. Ultimately it depends on the situation. At a coffee shop in the AM and going over to talk to a guy? No worries. At a club or in a bar and doing it? I wouldn't advise it.

Well, a topic like this is going to contain generalities. I don't have time to write a book on it.

Click to expand...

You should consider it.

RiverDad said:

This is an intriguing sentence. I have no idea what you mean, but the sentence sure catches the eye of readers.

Click to expand...

It was with regards to girls being taught that they should seek to be loved in a relationship, while boys should be taught to seek respect.

I strongly objected. CPWill has somewhat clarified...but I think that no matter what they, seek, they should be taught to expect, even demand, respect. And of course, be worthy of it.

If you teach...or reinforce seeking love, then that is what they will probably do...and leave themselves open to failure and abuse if they find the wrong person.

cpwill said:

I think you are misreading me then. Men and Women both need both love and respect, but women (generally) need more to feel loved while men (generally ) need more to feel respected. When they poll couples in arguments, for example, women usually feel unloved, while men usually feel disrespected, and each makes both of them angry - making men more likely to act in ways that come across as unloving and women more likely to act in ways that come across as disrespectful. Both men and women need to know that they are worthy independent of their partners, which does not obviate the requirement for the partner to make sure that their spouse feels worthy.

Does that make more sense?

Click to expand...

It does, thank you. And IMO, it is parents and society's faults that women grow up that way. Teach your little girls to seek respect instead.

Just IMO.