I read the book club selection, "What are Men Good for?" and it was one of the most interesting reads I've ever had. Here is a video blog from a woman who came to the same conclusions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

Views: 264

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting video. Thanks for sharing. I like what she said about chivalry and feminism being built on the same principle, but in feminism, manhood is not honored and women treat man like crap.

I'm the oldschool chivalrous type she mentioned. I share Teddy Roosevelt's belief that generally the woman should be the main caregiver, and the man should be bringing home the bacon. I'm also against women in our military. The three P's mentioned on the site a while back are spot-on. This belief is derived from my upbringing and my religion. The Lord says that woman should submit to the man and not nag at him. But, He also says that while man should be the leader of the household, he must still honor the woman and respect her. He says that a good wife is a great treasure, but He also says that it is better to live on a rooftop than with a nagging woman. There is a balance: The wife is to follow the husband and try to please him, but the husband must honor his wife and try to please her.

Said all that and forgot to explain why I disagree.
I think that men are not disposable, but rather indespensable. Look at the inner city environments with rampant crime. You will find the vast majority of the male inmates had absentee fathers. Girls need their dad, too. I have two cousins (sisters) who had daddy issues growing up; one is a lesbian, and the other is whoring around with all kind of men. Many women who have trouble with men in some form often had trouble with male figures during childhood.
Societal masculinity is a social construct, yes. But it more than that. It is derived from biology, and should not be cast away. Back when everyone had spears and chariots, men were more cut out for combat and provision. The "Three P's" , along with the "Three G's", is ingrained in our physiology and our minds. The Three G's are Guide, Guard, and Govern. I like this better than the Three P's because it includes the Biblical and traditional role of man, as the head of his household. This does not mean that the Three P's are incorrect, but too many throw man's leadership role out the window, thinking that man is only good for protection. The Three G's explain why so many fatherless children grow up to be wayward adults. They have no man governing their home, and no man to guide them on the road to adulthood. Men who have trouble finding their manhood from my experience usually obtain confidence and security in themselves once they embrace the traditional societal views of manhood.
So, yes, it is up to man to guide and work and defend, as I believe it should be. This does not make us dispensable. It makes us necessary.

Here's a variety of perspectives of a variety of highly educated and highly successful women: 

Be it resolved men are obsolete…

http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/gender-in-the-21st-century

I listened to most of it and thought it was extremely interested and also very funny. Definitely worth a listen if you've got some time to kill. 

Yea, it's old hat. 

 I don't agree with her in that I still feel the world is not such a perfectly safe place that Men don't need to step forward and take it for the team on occasion. 

 Because I think a woman shouldn't have to. 

  I also loath the "mens' rights" movement with a seething passion. I think they're a parade of gutless coward betamales who want to blame women and society at large for their inability to compete in the marketplace of a society of free choice. They're the last kid picked for the team and think it's a societal issue that they were last. Instead of nutting up and performing, they'd rather blame everyone else.

It´s a overly intellectual bullshit discussion. Take away men and society breaks down. Nobody who builds streets, houses, bridges, nobody who keeps water plants running. Yes, yes, women could do that too, but they dont. As long as they arent ready to get dirty they shouldnt talk smack.

Not to mention, who will take out the garbage and kill spiders?

Well to be fair, I know plenty of men who can't handle garbage or spiders. For that matter, I know a fair amount that could never do any of the things Jay D mentions, either. 

 Just mention a snake and the buttholes of half the guys on this board will slam shut so hard it bites a hole in their chairs. 

RSS

Latest Activity

DHO updated their profile
12 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion AG Sessions in the group The Great Debate
"You know I really don't know what you're trying to prove here Shane. But I think you might have missed a dose this morning man. You seem to be itching to just nail someone for a comma being out of place or something so you can celebrate…"
21 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to David R.'s discussion Transgender Persons in the Military in the group The Great Debate
"Dude seriously? What is the title of this discussion? Or, I see what you're doing...I shouldn't say bill, I should say policy. Thanks for pointing out my folly."
23 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Sir's discussion Transgenderism and optical illusion in the group The Great Debate
"I'll read the article later when I have a break at work, but already you could simply say: Is it more transgender that have schizophrenia or is it more schizophrenics who are transgender? This looks like either it's already being spun to…"
26 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion Proverbs 18:24 in the group Christian Men
"Compose noun "Create" synonym "Invent" The Hebrews did not invent a good chunk of Proverbs. They transcribed them from oral traditions."
29 minutes ago
Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion AG Sessions in the group The Great Debate
""Pretty close to the exact wording" Useless."
34 minutes ago
Shane replied to David R.'s discussion Transgender Persons in the Military in the group The Great Debate
"What bill?"
35 minutes ago
Clinton R. Ausmus replied to Pale Horse's discussion AG Sessions in the group The Great Debate
"Since PH asked the question, don't you think he should be the one to open it up. Takes 2 minutes on google to get pretty close to the exact wording that Mueller has given really. So I'm not real sure what you're going to do when…"
38 minutes ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service