I'd say you are trying to peel the onion and not admit confidence or strength is no guarantee of success and most women are smarter than that.
Odd thing about your comment on ignorant value judgements- I see 99% of your post to be little more than that...
To claim estrogen is responsible for cougars, to deny POWER and MONEY are the attractant old rich dudes have, and their 'confidence' is arrogance when a mistress tapes your meltdown over a picture with Magic Johnson.
I have to ask... how old are you? You use hormones to explain something but I am 'gross' for using the term, 'leading with your penis'????
The late great David Broder noted years ago (I think when Hillary was predicted to be the 2008 winner) that the Dem party was the party of feminist values and had launched a war against masculine values
What do you base this statement on?The problem is that feminists have had far too much influence on the definition of what it means to be a man
I tend to think the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease. So some extremely vocal feminists make a lot of noise and achieve maybe 20% of what their agenda is. They typically don't represent the majority of people who promote or support equality for women.
But what is it, what behaviors exhibit confidence in a man? That's the question. For me, a man who can gracefully accept defeat, who is reflective and does not feel the need to overtly control the room or insert himself inappropriately to service his pride is a confident man. That's very sexy and as a woman, i feel like I can trust this man more to take control when he is best suited and the outcome of his being in control is genuinely in the best interests of everyone involved rather than just to serve his ego.Men have a tendency to want to project a sense of confidence, and women have a tendency to be attracted to men that project such confidence.
IMO what most women really want and desire is to be heard and respected.Although not exclusively, one way in which men tend to demonstrate such confidence is by demonstrating that they have the ability to provide a woman with the things that she needs and desires.
Think about that for a minute. Why would they?Feminists condemn such tendencies as patriarchal and macho, and therefore unacceptable
Why would a man want a woman who was attracted to him because of the things her could buy for her?? Is that a quality woman? Or is that man just looking for a trophy?That is why it is not uncommon to see very rich old men, who would otherwise not be able to attract young beautiful women, indeed have such women as partners.
I disagree with you. I don't think that criticizing roles that are unhealthy for both men and woman is a negative thing. This perspective seems to be rooted in rather antiquated notions of what men and women provide each other in a relationship.By doing so they have simply created an environment that encourages the development of various types of neurosis and insecurity because people have to suppress how they naturally feel in order to conform to the feminist notions of how men and women should relate.
This seems disconnected from the conversation to me.These feelings of frustration result in an overall sense of unhappiness and pain that encourages the development of destructive tendencies. These destructive tendencies encourage people to want to destroy and tear down others. The symptom of that is that people now look up to people who tear down others.
"Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers" - Voltaire
"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men. True nobility lies in being superior to your former self" -Hemingway
Correct, so again I ask. Look, I get that you were 'piqued', alright. I have that effect on people. I'll spare you the exposure. But for the sake of whatever integrity you'd personally like to evince, perhaps you could address posts rather than begging for others to free-associate you away from your open wounds. Just a thought.You said
While I am 100% for women becoming educated in the third world (and, probably unlike you, have actually done something about that), that is literally a meaningless statistic when discussing the U.S. educational system.If you consult a chart showing the percentage of women in primary education they seem to be minorities on the 3rd world and/or religiously repressive countries.
That is correct. However, we are now seeing that more women are going to college and graduating college, for the simple enough reason that a childs' approach to education is largely determined by early more formative years.In our country males in grammar school are a super minority, a 2 to 1 minority in High School but 56% in colleges
While your rhetoric is problematic in that it threatens to discredit your point, there is actually a nugget of truth in that. Women are more attracted to security, while men are more attracted to challenge and achievement. One of the reasons for the famous "pay gap" is simply that the genders seek out different career fields based on that distinction. If we were to shift teacher compensation from a heavy out-year model featuring generous pension, health benefits, etc, to a heavy near-year model featuring high salaries, we would probably attract not only more men to the system, but also higher quality performers.If you want to make sweeping generalities then our rural school may help... due to a lower salary the teachers were of three types. First the wives of a local farmer/rancher or businessman- steady pay, summers off, a teacher's Union with healthcare and retirement looks good out here past the Asian Fusion restaurants. Next older teachers on a down and out slide from better paying schools. Last new teachers hopefully on the way up. Both of the last two groups didn't stay long.
So if you want amateurish stereotypes to go off of, perhaps the males in our society are somewhat disdainful of the profession and it isn't women teaching the way they learn, but teaching the way they instruct. Nurturing, supportive and encouraging... while the history/football coach just says 'rub some dirt on it' if a student has trouble grasping dates...
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
BTW, it's a different topic, but that is the problem that I have with neocon foreign policy. It's either the US has to get it's way, or it is considered weak. It's total BS, and that is a big problem with the way we try to run the world. It is very dangerous.