• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is There A War On Masculinity Going On In The United States?

Is there a war going on against masculinity in the United States?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 42.9%
  • No

    Votes: 32 57.1%

  • Total voters
    56
Oh I think it is VERY silly... a very demeaning view of why women marry who they do. No doubt some women want a 'strong, confident' man but a bunch of other women see that can cover up arrogance and bull headed stupidity.

I think your response is a manifestation of arrogance, stupidity and ignorance. In the first place arrogance is not a symptom of true strength, true confidence. The same can be said of stupidity. And that is, quite frankly the problem I have with feminists and person like you that going around making ignorant value judgements on everyone else.

Many women might love a romance novel where a super rich, super smart, super confident stud sweeps them off their feet but most practical women want a man who doesn't lead with his penis, or he thinks his opinion counts more than hers, does little things that show he cares, and has TALENT to make HIS PART of the income they BOTH produce. Just seems a silly overly simplistic cartoon world you attempt to draw.

And again another manifestation of arrogance and ignorance. Here you have extrapolated confidence and strength to mean what is contained in a romance novel. And what is more insulting is that you equate strength and confidence with leading with a penis. Your position is gross, arrogant and insulting.

My wife and I have a saying many other couples have- "I'm the boss... as long as she says so!"

While that is very cute, are you saying that is how women and men should actually relate to each other. If that is the case, then that is stupid and ignorant.
 
I think your response is a manifestation of arrogance, stupidity and ignorance. In the first place arrogance is not a symptom of true strength, true confidence. The same can be said of stupidity. And that is, quite frankly the problem I have with feminists and person like you that going around making ignorant value judgements on everyone else. And again another manifestation of arrogance and ignorance. Here you have extrapolated confidence and strength to mean what is contained in a romance novel. And what is more insulting is that you equate strength and confidence with leading with a penis. Your position is gross, arrogant and insulting. While that is very cute, are you saying that is how women and men should actually relate to each other. If that is the case, then that is stupid and ignorant.

Ahh 'true' strength and 'true' confidence. True strength like knowing when to bend and when to use a gentle touch, let another lead for they too need to make their own decisions and falls??? True confidence like say willing to share the authority to accomplish a mission but retaining the responsibility?

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'???? :doh
 
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
 
.........

The problem is that feminists have had far too much influence on the definition of what it means to be a man
What do you base this statement on?

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.

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.
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.

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.
IMO what most women really want and desire is to be heard and respected.

Feminists condemn such tendencies as patriarchal and macho, and therefore unacceptable
Think about that for a minute. Why would they?

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.
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?

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.
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.

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.
This seems disconnected from the conversation to me.
 
Although that might be a higher quality of integrity and effort, it is also more likely that such qualities will not manifest under such circumstances. Therefore it is not conducive in most instances.
You're a cynical man. Self-sacrifice, selflessness, charity. These things mean nothing to you?

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.
 
Amateurish observation at best. Perhaps boys feel a closer bond to a female teacher and feel more incentive to produce for a female than the girls do. Perhaps a nurturing environment works best rather than a more 'male' approach?

Not really. Boys are more naturally active and less inclined to be able to successfully sit and concentrate quietly for lengths of time. Girls are. Our education system, however, is designed around the latter. A "nurturing" environment does indeed work better. For girls.

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.

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.

In our country males in grammar school are a super minority, a 2 to 1 minority in High School but 56% in colleges

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.

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... ;)

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.
 
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

So Hillary Clinton is against all masculine men in USA?!
 
What do you base this statement on?

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.

I am basing it on a number of observations. For example a rise in the sentiment that a woman who prefers to stay home rather than work is something that is negative.

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.

I agree with what you have said here. Which is why I said to another poster that arrogance is not a symptom of true confidence and strength. One of the big problems that I have with our present culture is that it has the tendency to inculcate the value that somehow you always have to be the victor or always have to be the boss in order to be successful. It's total BS crap. No one can win every contest. No one can always be the boss. And while I'm on that "boss" notion, there is no boss. We are all servants of one another and the environment. A man should consider himself to be the servant of his queen. That he is so fortunate to have been given such a beautiful, wonderful, flower to help make an otherwise miserable existence enjoyable. Therefore he will not mind working very hard in order to make her happy. There is no "boss."

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.

IMO what most women really want and desire is to be heard and respected.

Again, I agree, and they should be heard and given the utmost respect. That will naturally flow if men consider themselves the servant of their queen. But no, we teach everyone the arrogant principle that you have to always win, always be on top, otherwise you are a loser. Such a destructive culture.

Think about that for a minute. Why would they?

Because they are confused. And part of that is the result of a culture that tends to value money, hubris, and arrogance over knowledge, humility and respect for others. It's very unfortunate.

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?

It's not the sole basis of the attraction, but it is a factor. How many women want to support a man that doesn't want to engage in any type of productive work, but just sit around play video games, eat and have sex?

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.

Well we certainly have a big disagreement if you feel that it is wrong for a man to want to project a sense of confidence and wrong for a woman to be attracted to a man that does. I have a very big problem with that. There is nothing unhealthy about that. I think the problem is that people have stupid notions about what real confidence is. That's what we need to focus on, not making men feel that their desire to project a sense of confidence is wrong.

This seems disconnected from the conversation to me.

Well it is connected because if you actually feel that it is wrong for men to want to project a sense of confidence, that is very unhealthy. And encouraging men to suppress such tendencies will create an environment in which various neurosis and frustration will develop. And from that flows anger and the desire to lash out and destroy, which makes people who advocate destruction attractive.
 
You're a cynical man. Self-sacrifice, selflessness, charity. These things mean nothing to you?

You don't understand. I am totally aware that a higher quality of integrity is manifest when a person is put under conditions that make it more unlikely that such integrity will manifest. For example a man who refuses to steal food when given the opportunity, even if that means he will die. But what I am saying, is that the more adverse the conditions, the less likely integrity will manifest itself. Therefore society should strive to put people in general in a position where it is more likely that they will behave in a manner that is consistent with the notion of integrity.

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.

I don't know what you are talking about. First of all, what do you think I am so piqued about? And who are you that you feel that you are so righteous and great that you have "that effect" on people? And please, what is it exactly that you have to expose? Please share, I really want to hear this.
 
I don't know what you are talking about.
Correct. Too bad this wasn't sufficient to deter you from attempting to flex muscles you evidently don't possess.
 
Correct. Too bad this wasn't sufficient to deter you from attempting to flex muscles you evidently don't possess.

It's okay. I understand what you are pissed off about. Although you would like to project a sense of integrity, in fact you have little or none, and your post is evidence of that. So please spare us of the attempt to project your self loathing onto others and address the post.
 
It's okay. I understand what you are pissed off about. Although you would like to project a sense of integrity, in fact you have little or none, and your post is evidence of that. So please spare us of the attempt to project your self loathing onto others and address the post.
Ah, yes. The 'No, you are!' response. Almost as cool as mother jokes. You're aware that emulation is flattery, right?

Lightweights, lightweights everywhere and not a stop to think.
 
Ah, yes. The 'No, you are!' response. Almost as cool as mother jokes. You're aware that emulation is flattery, right?

Lightweights, lightweights everywhere and not a stop to think.

It's true. You just don't have it. Sorry. Arrogance and integrity just don't mix.
 
It's true. You just don't have it. Sorry. Arrogance and integrity just don't mix.
I had enough to inspire your ire, that's very clear. As I said, I'm accustomed to it. :cool:
 
So Hillary Clinton is against all masculine men in USA?!

hard to say since she didn't exactly choose one for a mate
 
I had enough to inspire your ire, that's very clear. As I said, I'm accustomed to it. :cool:

I see. What you have just posted is evidence of why feminists feel the way they do.
 
Is looking like Magnum PI still considered masculine? God, I hope so.
 
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

That's interesting. Do you have a quote? What was the context? Perhaps he is just someone trying to score some political points.
 
I was looking for some background information on another topic when I stumbled across a website. I thought it was very interesting. Here's the link

Mission Statement | Women for Men





So what do you think? Is there a war going on against masculinity in the United States?

I don't think it's a conscious war, but I do think that we are trying to feminize men to a great extent, because men (and women) who are considered "strong", are hard to control, and don't placate easily. I was reading a story about a related issue earlier this morning- about how girls are easier to teach, because they are more compliant as young children in schools, and boys are viewed as difficult, so they are often given ADHD drugs to calm them into a more docile child.

I personally prefer both men and women to have a little fighting spirit, and I don't view masculine traits as negatives, unless the individual still has problems controlling his impulses as an adult, and can't manage to be productive with that energy.
 
There is no war on masculinity. There are just more limp-wristed men in our society than there has been in the past.

There is no War on Christmas. That's just another FAUXNews concoction aimed to appease gullible people and boost ratings.

There is no war religion. That's just religious people whining because people are making fun of them for their beliefs in myths and superstitions. I would hardly call that "war." :roll:

There is no war on the 2nd amendment. That's just a bunch of NRA nutter's trying to boost their membership and cash flow to the politician's pockets and the gun manufacturers.

Come to think of it, there isn't much "war," going on right now at all. How un-American! :lamo
 
I don't think it's a conscious war, but I do think that we are trying to feminize men to a great extent, because men (and women) who are considered "strong", are hard to control, and don't placate easily.

That's a good point, and is something that I have thought about as well.
 
It probably is, but the problem is that younger women may not think that's a good thing anymore. :lol:

Oh no, I totally mean Magnum PI circa 1984.
 
Oh there is. Big time.

We're five years away from the straight white male getting pelted with rotten fruit when walking in public.

Just look what's happened to me! I was once a macho man, went huntin', fishin', waxed the automobile, even had my own mancave, now look at me, baking muffins!

food-drag~1.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom