• 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
Not just an attack on men, though that's probably how it's intended. It is really an attack on humanity as a whole; by way of the divine distinction between male and female, and the role that this distinction serves in the formation of marriage and family and society.

I agree with you and I think it's very unfortunate and dangerous.
 
No. Only the self-inflicted war on effort and integrity.

What people are given to misinterpret as 'war' is merely the cumulative effect of a historical process that operates interdependently at several different levels, whereby phenomena we recognise as 'current events' are driven by generational, ideological inertia in turn lent impetus by broad shifts in awareness that occur across significant eras. That these surface ripples are mistaken for conflict rather than equilibrium (or even feedback) testifies to personal bias. What the majority understand as 'progression' is no more than projection of self-interest, as if to believe that the scales could be tipped via ego alone.

Of those men who believe themselves to be thus engaged in said 'war', I can only suggest that in believing such, they align themselves, however unwittingly, with the one-dimensional, brainless femiclowns they might otherwise have managed to undermine. It's a little disheartening, if expected. Still, the learning curve allows for self-delusion.

I disagree. I think that effort and integrity are functions of being situated such that one can be satisfied in the fulfillment of ones reasonable desires. For instance, a man who is hungry is much more likely to steal than one who is well fed. I think there have been efforts by some intellectuals that have resulted in men and women suppressing feelings that have led to neurotic behavior and is destroying the social fabric of society. Although in the ultimate scheme, things do level out. But that does not mean that one should not endeavor to correct localized disturbances.
 
Let me ask something very specific then. Do you see the attempts by some feminists to create a genderless world as an attack on men?

If the effort is to make the world "genderless" then how is it an attack on just men?
 
If the effort is to make the world "genderless" then how is it an attack on just men?

Although is not exclusively an attack on men, it is an attack nevertheless. Furthermore, the rhetoric of such persons can at times be hostile to men specifically.
 
Although is not exclusively an attack on men, it is an attack nevertheless. Furthermore, the rhetoric of such persons can at times be hostile to men specifically.

Sorry but I think that's ridiculous. Like I've said before, every group has extremists and I'm sure there are some individuals that use hateful language but they don't represent the majority. Overall the evolution of what defines a man as a man I see as a deeply positive thing and of great benefit to men in general.
 
I disagree. I think that effort and integrity are functions of being situated such that one can be satisfied in the fulfillment of ones reasonable desires.
This is plainly untrue. Effort and integrity don't presuppose positivity, whether assumed in advance or not.

For instance, a man who is hungry is much more likely to steal than one who is well fed. I think there have been efforts by some intellectuals that have resulted in men and women suppressing feelings that have led to neurotic behavior and is destroying the social fabric of society. Although in the ultimate scheme, things do level out. But that does not mean that one should not endeavor to correct localized disturbances.
These are givens. Who suggests otherwise?
 
Sorry but as a white man I don't see it. As a white man I get to earn more money than any other demographic, I am over represented by other white men at every level of government, and I am over represented in the leadership of the vast majority of companies and organizations.

If you have experienced racist attitudes towards yourself, but never witnessed it towards others, then frankly it sounds to me like you might be too self absorbed to see it.

I could be self absorbed or I could just be a young person who lives in an extremely liberal area where there is no visible racism. You do realize that it's not all that rampant in many areas of US but nice of you to judge me anyways.
 
The flaw in your position is that it assumes that without such programs there would be a pure meritocracy. If that was so I would agree with you. But that simply is not the case. The problem is that because of such past and present discrimination, there is a power structure in place that is quite frankly dominated by white males, some of whom that discriminate based on race.

I don't assume that there would be a pure meritocracy I just don't condone fixing something by using active discrimination against others.
 
Oh please. The white male is still in the safest condition by far. The fact that all levels of government have a few programs here or there which provide specific benefit to minorities should not prevent you from considering how relatively untouched the white male is.

I don't have a problem with providing benefits to others I have a problem when those benefits specifically discriminate against someone else in the process. The racial attitude of some of you towards white men is appalling, just because there are a lot of white men in power positions doesn't make it okay to discriminate against those who are not, you are condoning something that if done towards any minority you would stand vehemently against.
 
I don't have a problem with providing benefits to others I have a problem when those benefits specifically discriminate against someone else in the process. The racial attitude of some of you towards white men is appalling, just because there are a lot of white men in power positions doesn't make it okay to discriminate against those who are not, you are condoning something that if done towards any minority you would stand vehemently against.

I am a white man. I don't hold pity toward our kind, nor do I have animosity toward my own kind. I'm sorry, I just don't identify whatsoever with this stance.
 
I could be self absorbed or I could just be a young person who lives in an extremely liberal area where there is no visible racism. You do realize that it's not all that rampant in many areas of US but nice of you to judge me anyways.

I don't mean to judge you, but you also should realize that most racism and bigotry is not visible anymore.
 
I am a white man. I don't hold pity toward our kind, nor do I have animosity toward my own kind. I'm sorry, I just don't identify whatsoever with this stance.

There are a lot of white men who feel the same way as you. I'm not saying you should hold pity towards anyone I'm just saying I believe it wrong to discriminate against anyone in an attempt to stop potential discrimination against someone else.
 
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?

Well there was that "metrosexual" thing that rolled through town about ten years ago, but that seems to have blown over more or less.
 
Oh look, a bunch of self proclaimed manly men blubbering about how persecuted they are. I always find it hilarious that the same insecure losers who spout crap about how stoic and tough men are supposed to be have the biggest victim complex.
 
Not really a war, more like collateral damage from all those politically correct bombing runs on our culture.
 
Sorry but I think that's ridiculous. Like I've said before, every group has extremists and I'm sure there are some individuals that use hateful language but they don't represent the majority. Overall the evolution of what defines a man as a man I see as a deeply positive thing and of great benefit to men in general.

The problem is that feminists have had far too much influence on the definition of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. 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. 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. Women have a tendency to be attracted to such men. 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. Feminists condemn such tendencies as patriarchal and macho, and therefore unacceptable. 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. 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. Therefore Simon Cowell of American Idol is so popular. And it helps explain why politicians who promise to destroy the enemy are more popular than those who advocate finding common ground with those with whom we may have differences.
 
On purpose, no. But the way that our education system is designed by women for the way that women learn, administrated largely by women, and then taught by women, has resulted in a system that systematically disadvantages boys.

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?

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.

In our country males in grammar school are a super minority, a 2 to 1 minority in High School but 56% in colleges. Perhaps our culture frowns on men in close association with small children? Maybe we embrace our mythological 'school marm' of "Little House on the Prairie" a tad too tight. Perhaps it is all the movies where the smart guy is a bespectacled eye-head, small, skinny and not very assertive???

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... ;)
 
The problem is that feminists have had far too much influence on the definition of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. 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. 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. Women have a tendency to be attracted to such men. 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. Feminists condemn such tendencies as patriarchal and macho, and therefore unacceptable. 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. 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. Therefore Simon Cowell of American Idol is so popular. And it helps explain why politicians who promise to destroy the enemy are more popular than those who advocate finding common ground with those with whom we may have differences.

Rather silly use of gender roles. Many men tend to follow a strong, confident leader- it is a HUMAN trait to be attracted to leadership types- not a gender trait. Though it has always made me chuckle that a hard driving female is a ball buster and a hard driving man is confident... :doh

Rich old men attract far more than women... but you seem intent on making this a gender issue as well. That old rich men can go through a series of trophy wives is more about our male oriented society than 'nature'. Well off women can have pool boys and such, but because a sexual woman is a slut while a sexual man is a stud, she doesn't advertise her boy toy with court side seat dates...

But the best laugh on all of this is blaming feminists for the HUMAN rather sad trait of loving a good train wreck. been part and parcel of our species since the very beginning. Cruelty is not a recent development. I guess Feminists are also responsible for the 'class wars'?

Your last line is the best line.... soo out of the strike zone... To say politicians who promise the destruction of an enemy are like feminists and those politicians who seek a common ground are not.... sooooo BushII over heated war talk is feminist and Obama wanting to open a dialogue with Iran is macho???
 
Rather silly use of gender roles. Many men tend to follow a strong, confident leader- it is a HUMAN trait to be attracted to leadership types- not a gender trait. Though it has always made me chuckle that a hard driving female is a ball buster and a hard driving man is confident...

There is nothing silly about what I said. Although it is a human trait in general to be attracted to leadership, that is different from the conjugal attraction that women have for men who project a sense of confidence and can provide the necessities and luxuries they desire. In general, these qualities simply don't rank as high on men's priorities as they do women. In fact they can be negatives for women, and your hard driving female example is evidence of this.

Rich old men attract far more than women... but you seem intent on making this a gender issue as well.

We are discussing conjugal relationships so what you are saying is irrelevant, unless of course the man is gay.

That old rich men can go through a series of trophy wives is more about our male oriented society than 'nature'.
I disagree. I know personally I never experienced the desire to have a rich old woman. On the other hand I hear young women talk all the time about how they would like to find a rich old man.

Well off women can have pool boys and such, but because a sexual woman is a slut while a sexual man is a stud, she doesn't advertise her boy toy with court side seat dates...

Actually I think it's more that there is a difference in the effects of testosterone and estrogen that accounts for that. But that is my opinion.

But the best laugh on all of this is blaming feminists for the HUMAN rather sad trait of loving a good train wreck. been part and parcel of our species since the very beginning. Cruelty is not a recent development.

I didn't say they are solely responsible. I'm saying they have contributed to a rise in the frustration that leads to such behavior.

Your last line is the best line.... soo out of the strike zone... To say politicians who promise the destruction of an enemy are like feminists and those politicians who seek a common ground are not.... sooooo BushII over heated war talk is feminist and Obama wanting to open a dialogue with Iran is macho???

You don't understand what was said. Again, what I said was that the efforts of feminists to redefine what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman have contributed to the rise in frustration that leads that have made such persons more attractive to voters.
 
Adam_Carolla_Paperback_Cover-259x400.jpg
 
This is plainly untrue. Effort and integrity don't presuppose positivity, whether assumed in advance or not.

No it is true. While the qualities of effort and integrity are not absolutely dependent on positivity, positivity creates an environment that is more conducive to the manifestation of effort and integrity. That's how people like Tony Robbins make their money. They try to impart a sense of positivity into the minds of their audience.

These are givens. Who suggests otherwise?

It demonstrates that the lack of a positive environment, in this case the state of hunger, can contribute to a decline in integrity. A person is more likely to steal when he is hungry, which is a manifestation of the lack of integrity.
 
No it is true. While the qualities of effort and integrity are not absolutely dependent on positivity, positivity creates an environment that is more conducive to the manifestation of effort and integrity. That's how people like Tony Robbins make their money. They try to impart a sense of positivity into the minds of their audience.

It demonstrates that the lack of a positive environment, in this case the state of hunger, can contribute to a decline in integrity. A person is more likely to steal when he is hungry, which is a manifestation of the lack of integrity.
To the contrary, integrity's more notable, one's character having been impugned or questioned, not flattered (where no such motive would exist). Likewise for effort.

Again, this relates to my original post how, exactly?
 
There is nothing silly about what I said. Although it is a human trait in general to be attracted to leadership, that is different from the conjugal attraction that women have for men who project a sense of confidence and can provide the necessities and luxuries they desire. In general, these qualities simply don't rank as high on men's priorities as they do women. In fact they can be negatives for women, and your hard driving female example is evidence of this. We are discussing conjugal relationships so what you are saying is irrelevant, unless of course the man is gay. I disagree. I know personally I never experienced the desire to have a rich old woman. On the other hand I hear young women talk all the time about how they would like to find a rich old man. Actually I think it's more that there is a difference in the effects of testosterone and estrogen that accounts for that. But that is my opinion. I didn't say they are solely responsible. I'm saying they have contributed to a rise in the frustration that leads to such behavior. You don't understand what was said. Again, what I said was that the efforts of feminists to redefine what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman have contributed to the rise in frustration that leads that have made such persons more attractive to voters.

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. 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.

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

When I said rich old men attract more than younger women I didn't mean gay men... you seem fixated on the sex part of this. Money and power attract men and women alike- quibble over the percentages of either all you want but this isn't an estrogen thing like you wish to deflect the cultural double standard we have for cougars vs codgers. Girls playing baseball, or football... hell women in the military get a special snide comment or two by 'confident' men... :roll:

I believe that it isn't feminists causing the rise of frustration leading us to embrace a swaggering confident short sighted BushII and it is those 'confident' men who blast Obama for wanting a dialogue with folks we don't agree with. This is a CULTURAL thing where the extremists on BOTH sides get blamed for 'the problem'.

But for every 'confident' man lavishing luxuries on his woman there are a dozen equally 'confident' men doing hard time upstate...
 
To the contrary, integrity's more notable, one's character having been impugned or questioned, not flattered (where no such motive would exist). Likewise for effort.

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.

Again, this relates to my original post how, exactly?

You said

No. Only the self-inflicted war on effort and integrity.
 
Back
Top Bottom