Could it be that the previous generations of overly protective, safety focused, helicoptering parents have created this risk-averse, cocooned new generation? My generation (Baby Boomer) were parent-averse, avoiding parental oversight as much as possible, and parents were too busy to care for the most part. We learned to fend for ourselve…
Could it be that the previous generations of overly protective, safety focused, helicoptering parents have created this risk-averse, cocooned new generation? My generation (Baby Boomer) were parent-averse, avoiding parental oversight as much as possible, and parents were too busy to care for the most part. We learned to fend for ourselves, get into and out of trouble, and fight our own fights. I remember my Dad finding me in a fight with another kid and telling me to hurry up and finish it because dinner was waiting. My friends and I played contact sports only occasionally with adult supervision and with only the barest of protective equipment (football helmets were, at best, plastic concussion devices), and we proudly displayed our scars to our girlfriends (but not our mothers). Male toughness was an expected if not honored trait among my peers. It may not have been the best of times nor the best of male development, but it produced men willing to take risks. It seems to me that women are now the risk takers, showing the mental and physical toughness once the domain of men.
“It may not have been the best of times nor the best of male development, but it produced men willing to take risks.”
Since true masculinity is all but forbidden now (and the most celebrated people in western culture are men who decide to become “women”, it’s clearly no accident that men are being eliminated.
At least no one is redefining what it is to be a man. Now, Women are redefined as birthing people so that men who wish to be women are defined as real women.
Did I even just write that? What a world we live in.
That's true. My buddy and his wife track their teenagers incessantly. The thing is, it would be easy to beat the tracking by LEAVING YOUR FUCKING PHONE AT HOME! But no modern teenager is willing to go anywhere without their phone, so they happily facilitate their own loss of freedom.
They're smarter than you give them credit for. My nieces are in high school and I'm the "cool" uncle so I know that they all just tell their parents they're going to their friends house, then leave their phones at said friends house, then go do whatever they want.
Potentially true. You could instead be the parent who doesn’t track their kids. Putting trust in them that they can do things on their own is critical. They also can know that if they need to call home if they’re in a bind they will be supported. Bring this back and remove the tracking
I have a slightly different take. We are paying the price of the feminization of America. All the risk avoidance; the mania for safety; the constant harping; is distinctly feminized. And we are much the worse for it. The knitting circle did not venture forth across oceans and untamed continents.
You've used the word 'feminized' a few times. Quite all encompassing. I personally know women who would blow a man away in sheer aggressiveness.
I just posted above on motorcycles and freedom, this article being about the open road and all, and how I see so few younger riders (of which I used to be one..). But when I do? More often than not, there's long hair popping out from under the helmet, tattoos visible on open skin. Girls, glorious females and displaying every part of themselves, literally and figuratively, as they pop the throttle and pass me on the inside.
We do live in a world of risk avoidance, no question about that. I agree. But I don't think the word 'feminized' describes it.
I would agree that women--moms mostly I think--push for safety. But it's just not true that risk avoidance is a feminine trait. For one thing, women generally don't knit anymore since industrialization relieved them from having to make clothes by hand. And IME girls and women overwhelmingly seek to travel around the world more. Back when I was a teen going on group trips through programs for kids to live and travel abroad, almost all the participants were girls. As adults, my single girlfriends with means would travel everywhere on their own, including far-flung unusual places as long as women are free to travel solo. For those who are partnered, the guys and husbands also travel because their wives or girlfriends planned the trips. Otherwise they'd never bother to get off their asses and go anywhere.
The constant harping for safety today is not a result of moms harping. It's a symptom of a first world where people live too comfortably and are out of touch with living, and have so few real problems they begin manufacturing problems,
And why is it you talk about "feminization" in such a way to clearly express traits associated with females are negative? I wouldn't disagree that a world tipped overly toward female traits dominant may lead to new problems, but a world tipped overly toward male traits dominant had proven historically to be disastrous for at least the female half of the population, and not so great for many men who died in wars or at hands of the likes of, Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Currently we've got totally masculinized worlds in Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and loads of Middle East countries. How much greater are they for it?
I don't think that of you, Bruce! I see your comments on TFP often and quite enjoy them. And from reading our thread I think your original comment was more a generalization pointing to a complaint many of us here have toward liberal "feminism" today. (Frankly I think feminism today is toxic.) I sometimes reply not so much to argue with the OP but to make a case to lurkers and spectators when I feel like there's some comments may be debatable.
Also it's no surprise you and I agree more than we disagree once we go into deeper conversations, or else we wouldn't have ended up here in the first place. There are healthy discussions going on here where people can come to flesh out different perspectives.
Understanding the Order/Chaos, masculine/feminine dichotomy has really helped me frame what is happening (thank you, Dr. Peterson!). Neither are bad, both are necessary for civilization to progress.
Personally, though, I’m more than ready for Order again.
Two women? Seriously? Two women were warmongers so it's enough to deduct how a female dominant world would be just as violent?
Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were two of the biggest and most notorious serial killers ever. Are they enough to deduct men are serial killers?
Hillary isn't even a good example. She was a product of the 60s and 70s when women had to prove they could play like boys. She probably carried that mindset with her for the rest of her life.
But to seriously answer your question, the few exceptional women world leaders pursuing war is a reflection of them playing in a male dominant international arena where the rules are set by men. If the overwhelming majority of world leaders are women, there would not be nearly as many wars. I'm not saying the world would be necessarily better. Just less violent.
"women world leaders pursuing war is a reflection of them playing in a male dominant international arena where the rules are set by men"
Oh please. Given the chance, women can be just as imperialistic as men. I'm sure at some point in your life you've repeated the phrase, "behind every successful man, there is a woman". Well the corollary to that is "behind every warring man is a woman".
I’m confused. You argue then men and women are really just alike, only women have been unable to express certain traits because they couldn’t work outside the home.
Then you argue that women are less violent than men and if they were in charge there would be fewer wars, or none at all.
Just pointing out the discrepancy in your argument because I see a lot of people making the same argument and it always baffles me. What reasoning led you to this conclusion?
If you haven’t read The Power you should. It’s about this same subject.
No, I'm no arguing in the absolutes. I think there are many traits that are traditionally associated with masculinity but are general human traits, such as courage and bravery, logical, risk taking, assertiveness, etc. (Risk taking is a nuanced one because we can delve deeper depending on whether we're talking about physical risks or situational risks.) I think these are traits that are not uniquely masculine but are associated with masculinity because women traditionally didn't have roles outside of homes that gave them opportunities or needs to express those traits.
But I also think there are some traits exhibited by more men vs. more women, and these traits by and large stem from biological differences. In regards to war and violence, when we look at violent crime data, the facts are most violent crimes are committed by men. (BTW I'm not saying men as a demographics are violent. I'm only pointing out that crime data shows a much higher percentage of violent criminals to be men rather than women.) There are also data showing males to be more responsive to visual stimulations. That may make them better hunters and combat fighters for example (and video games?)
Does that clarify what I meant? Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll check it out.
Yes, Physical Violence is a more masculine response. Social Violence, things like guilt and social snubbing or ostracization are more feminine responses.
I agree there would be less wars if women were in charge. I do NOT however agree that everything would necessarily be better on the whole. Much of the internal strife we are seeing now; people afraid to speak up and all of the attempts to 'cancel' people....those are what happens when society takes a more feminine direction. Less deaths? Maybe. More happiness? I'm definitely not seeing it currently.
I agree with you, Kevin. Although I think describing female social penalty as "violence" is a stretch. Yes there have been cases of suicides as a result, but that's very rare. Calling it social violence is like going down the road of Safetyism where the people say they feel unsafe because of words or anything else that don't actually inflict physical harm on them at all.
But it is a social dysfunction and part of women's socialization. We even have a movie about it from long ago (Mean Girls). And I'm on the same page with you on the point that it doesn't necessarily mean everything wold be better on the whole. And the issues you pointed out as a result of our cancel culture are examples of the worst that can happen with this type of socialization.
Honestly I've worked in male dominant environments and female dominant environments. My own conclusion is the two demographics can serve as a good check and balance of the worst behaviors of either side. More work gets done and done better when that checks and balance are in effect. The equalization of a balanced work force makes the work environments better too. (It goes without saying that by balanced work force I mean without crazy DEI HR departments which, admittedly, seem to be run almost entirely by women. I consider those to be in fact a classic example of disaster of an imbalanced work force. Companies need to start recruiting more men to HR and balance things out.)
Well, you argue that a male dominated world was the cause of all evil. So the answer to that is women in combat? I'm still laughing over that one. And, the mostly Islamic societies that "oppress" women. Who screeches about "Islamophobia" and "tolerance?" You can't have it both ways, much as you might want that.
I do not view feminism as negative. I view the imposition of it on men as negative. There are differences between the sexes that are to be celebrated. There is, however, a crisis among young men today that nobody can dispute. Yet the only thing we see and hear is about female empowerment and how women are oppressed. So, no, boys are not just damaged girls. And masculine traits are not to be bred out of society. Because we do so at our peril.
Ok Bruce, you're jumping to conclusion and putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that "a male dominated world was the cause of all evil"?? I did not say that and I do not think that. I just think that when you say the "feminization of the world" and "we're much worse for it" is inaccurate. Because much worse for whom? And the way you said it implied a negative undertone for a world where women might be dominant.
As for women in combat, I would say if the world is entirely run by women, there would be fewer violent wars, because women deal with conflicts differently. Not necessarily better, but different, So there would be a lot fewer combats. Often when I make this point, some men would trounced out the few historical female national leaders who waged war. But that's counterpoint is a fallacy because these few exceptions were still operating in a male dominant world. They had to play by male dominant rules.
But you won't get dispute from me that men are superior in physical strength and therefore more physically suited to ground combat being the actual fighters. But with other equalizers, such as pushing a button to send a drone, I think a woman can do just fine. BTW, a lot of women served on the ground in ground combat for all practical purposes since WWII, often having to face the same risks. Nonetheless, I'm not going to go into the rabbit hole here on this point. I'm actually on the opposite side of liberals who haven't the slightest clue what combat is like pushing for women in combat.
I don't know why you put scare quotes around "oppress" when talking about Islamic societies oppressing women. You know it's true. You can make sound and valid arguments without using scare quotes which belittle what women in the Middle East are going through. It's ok to have some sympathy. Sympathy can be a masculine trait too.
As for screeching about "Islamophobia" and "tolerance", I don't see it as women doing it. It's the left that's doing it. In fact, screeching about "Islamophobia" and "tolerance" has been one of the most successful ways of shutting down and silencing women speaking up about Islamic societies' denial of basic human rights to women, and also what happened with the human trafficking gang in England. So in my POV, it's left wing pushing it, not women.
As for "feminism", I want to point out that I'm not talking about "feminism". From your earlier post, you were talking about "feminized", which I read as general female traits, or female dominant. That's not the same as "feminism", and I think the distinction is very important. So if we're not talking about feminism but "feminine traits", well I think men and women have a lot more traits in common than not, and there are some traits which are more exhibited in men or women. But even that is not absolute, as the population are all gender nonconforming to some degree. It's just a matter of how much. Following this line of thinking, to me a world more "feminized" doesn't mean individual men have to be more like women. It just means a society that takes more women's approaches to operating and dealing with problems. AND I don't think that's better or worse. I think it is just better in some cases while leads to other issues and problems. I don't think either feminized or masculinized is better or worse. Each will raise its own problems. In real life IME at least, at work, the environments are always best when there's a balance of men and women working.
If you're moving the goalpost to talk about "feminism", then it's a different discussion altogether. Once upon a time, feminism brought women equal rights and made things better for women to live in society in equal terms. "Feminism" today is a shit show and I'd say it's damaging not just boys but girls as well. As for calls for "female empowerment" and "women are oppressed", well if it makes you feel better, those are empty calls. Women's rights are being rolled back to the 1950s now in subjugation to "Trans". The left is dismantling women's rights as we speak.
As for masculine traits being bred of out society, I do agree that politically from the left, what are traditionally perceived as masculine traits are not being valued. A lot of those traits IMO are not really masculine traits, but only perceived to be so because women had been excluded from taking part of the world outside of home. I think these traits are universally human, and many of them we should celebrate and encourage. But they're being devalued because they're associated with being "masculine". And yes I agree with you we're doing so at our peril.
There is a crisis among young men and boys. But let me ask you: why aren't older men stepping up and doing something about it instead of just sitting and blaming women? Why aren't more men taking rein then to show boys positive masculine traits? How to be a good man, a good son, a good husband, and a good father. How to self improve instead if indulging in internet porn and gaming! Men can do that irrespective of women or "feminists" or the left. You can let crazies be crazies and take control and teach boys how to value themselves. Why aren't more men doing that? Instead we have crybaby-in-chief Donald Trump, star athletes who make headlines for misbehaving, and Andrew Tate. Why aren't there more men talking to boys on self improvement besides Jordan Peterson?
And why are young men and boys so fragile that just a because women are doing better in some instances, it's enough to make them curl up in fetal position being damaged? I'm asking this seriously. Girls and young women had lived in a world where men had the upper hand for thousands of years. Women, not just feminine traits, were entirely excluded from society in many parts of the world. Somehow, women and girls just gritted their teeth and bore it and got on until very recent times. Why didn't their trauma debilitate them to the point of giving up like the boys and young men today?
"Why aren't more men taking rein to show boys positive masculine traits? How to be a good man, a good son, a good husband, and a good father. How to self improve instead of indulging in internet porn and gaming! Why aren't there more men talking to boys on self improvement besides Jordan Peterson?"
As a female physician & mom, I agree. Dads/uncles should show young men how to be a man & embody positive traits. Porn & gaming is beyond destructive. Just like social media for girls. I see the harm it does to my young patients. Porn, video games, social media, smartphones, devices for kids/teens----> lead to anxiety, depression, suicide, self harm. they put these kids on very harmful Psych drugs but instead they should just take away the stupid devices. At least 1/2 the kids diagnosed with ADHD would not have it if you took away video games/devices & made sure they got enough sleep at night. I tell parents all day. I hope they listen.
With my own kids, I limit the screen time < 60 minutes per day (and that's a max), they don't have devices & they will not have any devices until they are 14. when they are in Jr High, I will let them have simple phones with No Data that can call/text only.
Just read your response. Thank you for that. I agree fully with your points. Especially on the limitation of tech. There is a beautiful big world out there that both tests and rewards us. Tech is just an illusion. The Matrix writ large and uncomfortably true. Men need to be fathers. Teachers and guides. And take their daughters and sons into that big, beautiful world.
We probably agree on more than that on which we disagree. Although given the propensity for women to support the leftist Democrats in the US, they don't get a pass for that.
Yes, men to need to stand up, be better role models and take role in raising their children. To do that we need a society - and a government - that values and rewards that. Ours does not. We need to stop equating the sexes. To value each for their distinct virtues. In other words, return to normalcy and sanity.
A lot of women would consider voting Republicans if they stop passing insane anti-abortion laws. As long as they do this, they make it impossible for women to vote Republican, and a lot of women would vote Dem not because they support leftist agenda, but to them this is ground zero of women's right and freedom. Whatever you may think of abortion, this is the fact.
If you ask me, I think DeSantis really shot himself in the foot. If he had real galls, he could've brought the laws to reflect the national consensus, and tout FL as the model with the previous 16 weeks legal period. But he caved and showed he's a wimp after all, and he knows it too when signed this latest bill at night with no press and no fanfare. If Republicans would stop being so far right on this issue, a lot of women would finally be free to have choice not just about their own bodies but choice of which party to vote for.
Yea I know a lot of women who would vote GOP if they were more moderate on abortion. They don't need to be so extreme. Nor do Dems. they are both too extreme. 70% of Americans believe abortion should be legal, with some restrictions. They need to quit the extreme positions.
As I've posted elsewhere, I agree with you completely. Republicans are losing elections we should win because of this idiotic position on abortion. And despite your likely view of me as a troglodyte, I find it appalling that men don't recoil at the notion of telling someone they have zero suzerainity over their own bodies. I get it that it stops when a fetus is viable and transforms to infanticide but that's not the case at 12-15 or 16 weeks. DeSantis did himself no favors on that one. And if someone opposes abortion - great. Work to educate and offer alternatives. But don't impose your views on others.
Feminisms biggest detractor is that is focuses on discounting and wholly devaluing men. They are not binary choices. Instead feminism should be promoting strong women alongside strong men. That’s where it has failed big time.
Re: the knitting circle- young female knitters have been some of the most viscous on line starting in 2014... they mobbed non-conformists, ie those who don't march to LEFTISM on instagram creating a ‘purity spiral’ - anything Trump, right wing, patriotic, Christian was attacked. At the largest knitting on-line site Ravelry - knitters displaying any of those traits had their work taken down, they were ostracized, banished and mobbed. Young women today can be very viscous. And an embarassment compared to generations in the past.
Re: the knitting circle- young female knitters were some of the most viscous on-line starting 2014... they mobbed non-conformists (to them, folks who wouldn’t salute leftists positions) on line creating a ‘purity spiral’ - anything Trump, right wing, patriotic, Christian was attacked in that community. At the largest knitting on-line site Ravelry - knitters displaying any of those traits had their work taken down, they were ostracized and banished and mobbed. Young women today can be very viscous.
There is something to that view. When I entered the Air Force Academy in 1963, there was a poem prominently displayed over the entrance. It was titled "The Coming American", authored by Sam Walter Foss, and it began, "Bring me men to match my mountains; / Bring me men to match my plains; / Men with empires in their purpose / And new eras in their brains . . ." It was a paeon to masculinity, and an inspiration to young men. It is no longer there at the Academy; removed when women were admitted to the classes of cadets. Now, I fully understand and accept that women have the capability and the right to pursue their dreams in the Air Force or any field of endeavor, but I do not believe that female progress has to denigrate or dismiss male characteristics, nor do I think that women need to imitate those characteristics to succeed. The current concentration on female opportunities and advancement in all fields need not come at the suppression or imitation of men.
As a mother with a successful career, I agree with you
Women don't need to act like men to do well in their job
the current de-masculization going on in Hollywood & Leftist culture is harmful to everyone. we should encourage boys and men to embody strong masculine character traits
It’s also interesting to have the AF presume that the women attending didn’t feel the same sense of power. The poem could have been tweaked just a bit and it would have worked. Instead it was cast out. That’s the problem right there
Yes, the poem's use of "men" could easily be construed as "mankind", as women have obviously been historically instrumental in the pioneering spirit of the nation, accompanying their men into the wilderness, building and defending their homesteads and settlements.
We don’t have to be mountains like men. But women absolutely can move mountains. Why the need to strike down one sex for the other is beyond ridiculous.
Because it was 1963 not 2023. You are talking a 40 year difference. Now all you hear is first women to do this, first black woman, first Hispanic, first Asian, first Muslim, big fucking deal. Same with the nationally of men being the firsts. If a woman or man is qualified pick them. If you're picking for the first to occupy some position, you get what we have today. Box checkers who were hired just to check that box.
Could it be that the previous generations of overly protective, safety focused, helicoptering parents have created this risk-averse, cocooned new generation? My generation (Baby Boomer) were parent-averse, avoiding parental oversight as much as possible, and parents were too busy to care for the most part. We learned to fend for ourselves, get into and out of trouble, and fight our own fights. I remember my Dad finding me in a fight with another kid and telling me to hurry up and finish it because dinner was waiting. My friends and I played contact sports only occasionally with adult supervision and with only the barest of protective equipment (football helmets were, at best, plastic concussion devices), and we proudly displayed our scars to our girlfriends (but not our mothers). Male toughness was an expected if not honored trait among my peers. It may not have been the best of times nor the best of male development, but it produced men willing to take risks. It seems to me that women are now the risk takers, showing the mental and physical toughness once the domain of men.
“It may not have been the best of times nor the best of male development, but it produced men willing to take risks.”
Since true masculinity is all but forbidden now (and the most celebrated people in western culture are men who decide to become “women”, it’s clearly no accident that men are being eliminated.
At least no one is redefining what it is to be a man. Now, Women are redefined as birthing people so that men who wish to be women are defined as real women.
Did I even just write that? What a world we live in.
Kids can't get away from their parents today because they're all being GPS tracked by their parents wherever they go.
That's true. My buddy and his wife track their teenagers incessantly. The thing is, it would be easy to beat the tracking by LEAVING YOUR FUCKING PHONE AT HOME! But no modern teenager is willing to go anywhere without their phone, so they happily facilitate their own loss of freedom.
They're smarter than you give them credit for. My nieces are in high school and I'm the "cool" uncle so I know that they all just tell their parents they're going to their friends house, then leave their phones at said friends house, then go do whatever they want.
Potentially true. You could instead be the parent who doesn’t track their kids. Putting trust in them that they can do things on their own is critical. They also can know that if they need to call home if they’re in a bind they will be supported. Bring this back and remove the tracking
I'm not a parent, and anyway you're preaching to the choir. It's all the other parents I see. They ALL track their kids.
I have a slightly different take. We are paying the price of the feminization of America. All the risk avoidance; the mania for safety; the constant harping; is distinctly feminized. And we are much the worse for it. The knitting circle did not venture forth across oceans and untamed continents.
So I must reply, Bruce..
You've used the word 'feminized' a few times. Quite all encompassing. I personally know women who would blow a man away in sheer aggressiveness.
I just posted above on motorcycles and freedom, this article being about the open road and all, and how I see so few younger riders (of which I used to be one..). But when I do? More often than not, there's long hair popping out from under the helmet, tattoos visible on open skin. Girls, glorious females and displaying every part of themselves, literally and figuratively, as they pop the throttle and pass me on the inside.
We do live in a world of risk avoidance, no question about that. I agree. But I don't think the word 'feminized' describes it.
I would offer the word 'control.'
Nah It's still feminized.
Plus it generated a lot of responses, positive and negative.
Mission accomplished. lol
Of that, I agree..
Maybe the young can't tear themselves away from video games and social media to want to drive.
Millennial Job Interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo0KjdDJr1c
I would agree that women--moms mostly I think--push for safety. But it's just not true that risk avoidance is a feminine trait. For one thing, women generally don't knit anymore since industrialization relieved them from having to make clothes by hand. And IME girls and women overwhelmingly seek to travel around the world more. Back when I was a teen going on group trips through programs for kids to live and travel abroad, almost all the participants were girls. As adults, my single girlfriends with means would travel everywhere on their own, including far-flung unusual places as long as women are free to travel solo. For those who are partnered, the guys and husbands also travel because their wives or girlfriends planned the trips. Otherwise they'd never bother to get off their asses and go anywhere.
The constant harping for safety today is not a result of moms harping. It's a symptom of a first world where people live too comfortably and are out of touch with living, and have so few real problems they begin manufacturing problems,
And why is it you talk about "feminization" in such a way to clearly express traits associated with females are negative? I wouldn't disagree that a world tipped overly toward female traits dominant may lead to new problems, but a world tipped overly toward male traits dominant had proven historically to be disastrous for at least the female half of the population, and not so great for many men who died in wars or at hands of the likes of, Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Currently we've got totally masculinized worlds in Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and loads of Middle East countries. How much greater are they for it?
I don't think that of you, Bruce! I see your comments on TFP often and quite enjoy them. And from reading our thread I think your original comment was more a generalization pointing to a complaint many of us here have toward liberal "feminism" today. (Frankly I think feminism today is toxic.) I sometimes reply not so much to argue with the OP but to make a case to lurkers and spectators when I feel like there's some comments may be debatable.
Also it's no surprise you and I agree more than we disagree once we go into deeper conversations, or else we wouldn't have ended up here in the first place. There are healthy discussions going on here where people can come to flesh out different perspectives.
Understanding the Order/Chaos, masculine/feminine dichotomy has really helped me frame what is happening (thank you, Dr. Peterson!). Neither are bad, both are necessary for civilization to progress.
Personally, though, I’m more than ready for Order again.
"a world tipped overly toward male traits dominant had proven historically to be disastrous"
And yet two of the biggest, and most influential warmongers, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland, are women.
Two women? Seriously? Two women were warmongers so it's enough to deduct how a female dominant world would be just as violent?
Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were two of the biggest and most notorious serial killers ever. Are they enough to deduct men are serial killers?
Hillary isn't even a good example. She was a product of the 60s and 70s when women had to prove they could play like boys. She probably carried that mindset with her for the rest of her life.
But to seriously answer your question, the few exceptional women world leaders pursuing war is a reflection of them playing in a male dominant international arena where the rules are set by men. If the overwhelming majority of world leaders are women, there would not be nearly as many wars. I'm not saying the world would be necessarily better. Just less violent.
"women world leaders pursuing war is a reflection of them playing in a male dominant international arena where the rules are set by men"
Oh please. Given the chance, women can be just as imperialistic as men. I'm sure at some point in your life you've repeated the phrase, "behind every successful man, there is a woman". Well the corollary to that is "behind every warring man is a woman".
I’m confused. You argue then men and women are really just alike, only women have been unable to express certain traits because they couldn’t work outside the home.
Then you argue that women are less violent than men and if they were in charge there would be fewer wars, or none at all.
Just pointing out the discrepancy in your argument because I see a lot of people making the same argument and it always baffles me. What reasoning led you to this conclusion?
If you haven’t read The Power you should. It’s about this same subject.
No, I'm no arguing in the absolutes. I think there are many traits that are traditionally associated with masculinity but are general human traits, such as courage and bravery, logical, risk taking, assertiveness, etc. (Risk taking is a nuanced one because we can delve deeper depending on whether we're talking about physical risks or situational risks.) I think these are traits that are not uniquely masculine but are associated with masculinity because women traditionally didn't have roles outside of homes that gave them opportunities or needs to express those traits.
But I also think there are some traits exhibited by more men vs. more women, and these traits by and large stem from biological differences. In regards to war and violence, when we look at violent crime data, the facts are most violent crimes are committed by men. (BTW I'm not saying men as a demographics are violent. I'm only pointing out that crime data shows a much higher percentage of violent criminals to be men rather than women.) There are also data showing males to be more responsive to visual stimulations. That may make them better hunters and combat fighters for example (and video games?)
Does that clarify what I meant? Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll check it out.
Yes, Physical Violence is a more masculine response. Social Violence, things like guilt and social snubbing or ostracization are more feminine responses.
I agree there would be less wars if women were in charge. I do NOT however agree that everything would necessarily be better on the whole. Much of the internal strife we are seeing now; people afraid to speak up and all of the attempts to 'cancel' people....those are what happens when society takes a more feminine direction. Less deaths? Maybe. More happiness? I'm definitely not seeing it currently.
I agree with you, Kevin. Although I think describing female social penalty as "violence" is a stretch. Yes there have been cases of suicides as a result, but that's very rare. Calling it social violence is like going down the road of Safetyism where the people say they feel unsafe because of words or anything else that don't actually inflict physical harm on them at all.
But it is a social dysfunction and part of women's socialization. We even have a movie about it from long ago (Mean Girls). And I'm on the same page with you on the point that it doesn't necessarily mean everything wold be better on the whole. And the issues you pointed out as a result of our cancel culture are examples of the worst that can happen with this type of socialization.
Honestly I've worked in male dominant environments and female dominant environments. My own conclusion is the two demographics can serve as a good check and balance of the worst behaviors of either side. More work gets done and done better when that checks and balance are in effect. The equalization of a balanced work force makes the work environments better too. (It goes without saying that by balanced work force I mean without crazy DEI HR departments which, admittedly, seem to be run almost entirely by women. I consider those to be in fact a classic example of disaster of an imbalanced work force. Companies need to start recruiting more men to HR and balance things out.)
Well, you argue that a male dominated world was the cause of all evil. So the answer to that is women in combat? I'm still laughing over that one. And, the mostly Islamic societies that "oppress" women. Who screeches about "Islamophobia" and "tolerance?" You can't have it both ways, much as you might want that.
I do not view feminism as negative. I view the imposition of it on men as negative. There are differences between the sexes that are to be celebrated. There is, however, a crisis among young men today that nobody can dispute. Yet the only thing we see and hear is about female empowerment and how women are oppressed. So, no, boys are not just damaged girls. And masculine traits are not to be bred out of society. Because we do so at our peril.
Ok Bruce, you're jumping to conclusion and putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that "a male dominated world was the cause of all evil"?? I did not say that and I do not think that. I just think that when you say the "feminization of the world" and "we're much worse for it" is inaccurate. Because much worse for whom? And the way you said it implied a negative undertone for a world where women might be dominant.
As for women in combat, I would say if the world is entirely run by women, there would be fewer violent wars, because women deal with conflicts differently. Not necessarily better, but different, So there would be a lot fewer combats. Often when I make this point, some men would trounced out the few historical female national leaders who waged war. But that's counterpoint is a fallacy because these few exceptions were still operating in a male dominant world. They had to play by male dominant rules.
But you won't get dispute from me that men are superior in physical strength and therefore more physically suited to ground combat being the actual fighters. But with other equalizers, such as pushing a button to send a drone, I think a woman can do just fine. BTW, a lot of women served on the ground in ground combat for all practical purposes since WWII, often having to face the same risks. Nonetheless, I'm not going to go into the rabbit hole here on this point. I'm actually on the opposite side of liberals who haven't the slightest clue what combat is like pushing for women in combat.
I don't know why you put scare quotes around "oppress" when talking about Islamic societies oppressing women. You know it's true. You can make sound and valid arguments without using scare quotes which belittle what women in the Middle East are going through. It's ok to have some sympathy. Sympathy can be a masculine trait too.
As for screeching about "Islamophobia" and "tolerance", I don't see it as women doing it. It's the left that's doing it. In fact, screeching about "Islamophobia" and "tolerance" has been one of the most successful ways of shutting down and silencing women speaking up about Islamic societies' denial of basic human rights to women, and also what happened with the human trafficking gang in England. So in my POV, it's left wing pushing it, not women.
As for "feminism", I want to point out that I'm not talking about "feminism". From your earlier post, you were talking about "feminized", which I read as general female traits, or female dominant. That's not the same as "feminism", and I think the distinction is very important. So if we're not talking about feminism but "feminine traits", well I think men and women have a lot more traits in common than not, and there are some traits which are more exhibited in men or women. But even that is not absolute, as the population are all gender nonconforming to some degree. It's just a matter of how much. Following this line of thinking, to me a world more "feminized" doesn't mean individual men have to be more like women. It just means a society that takes more women's approaches to operating and dealing with problems. AND I don't think that's better or worse. I think it is just better in some cases while leads to other issues and problems. I don't think either feminized or masculinized is better or worse. Each will raise its own problems. In real life IME at least, at work, the environments are always best when there's a balance of men and women working.
If you're moving the goalpost to talk about "feminism", then it's a different discussion altogether. Once upon a time, feminism brought women equal rights and made things better for women to live in society in equal terms. "Feminism" today is a shit show and I'd say it's damaging not just boys but girls as well. As for calls for "female empowerment" and "women are oppressed", well if it makes you feel better, those are empty calls. Women's rights are being rolled back to the 1950s now in subjugation to "Trans". The left is dismantling women's rights as we speak.
As for masculine traits being bred of out society, I do agree that politically from the left, what are traditionally perceived as masculine traits are not being valued. A lot of those traits IMO are not really masculine traits, but only perceived to be so because women had been excluded from taking part of the world outside of home. I think these traits are universally human, and many of them we should celebrate and encourage. But they're being devalued because they're associated with being "masculine". And yes I agree with you we're doing so at our peril.
There is a crisis among young men and boys. But let me ask you: why aren't older men stepping up and doing something about it instead of just sitting and blaming women? Why aren't more men taking rein then to show boys positive masculine traits? How to be a good man, a good son, a good husband, and a good father. How to self improve instead if indulging in internet porn and gaming! Men can do that irrespective of women or "feminists" or the left. You can let crazies be crazies and take control and teach boys how to value themselves. Why aren't more men doing that? Instead we have crybaby-in-chief Donald Trump, star athletes who make headlines for misbehaving, and Andrew Tate. Why aren't there more men talking to boys on self improvement besides Jordan Peterson?
And why are young men and boys so fragile that just a because women are doing better in some instances, it's enough to make them curl up in fetal position being damaged? I'm asking this seriously. Girls and young women had lived in a world where men had the upper hand for thousands of years. Women, not just feminine traits, were entirely excluded from society in many parts of the world. Somehow, women and girls just gritted their teeth and bore it and got on until very recent times. Why didn't their trauma debilitate them to the point of giving up like the boys and young men today?
"Why aren't more men taking rein to show boys positive masculine traits? How to be a good man, a good son, a good husband, and a good father. How to self improve instead of indulging in internet porn and gaming! Why aren't there more men talking to boys on self improvement besides Jordan Peterson?"
As a female physician & mom, I agree. Dads/uncles should show young men how to be a man & embody positive traits. Porn & gaming is beyond destructive. Just like social media for girls. I see the harm it does to my young patients. Porn, video games, social media, smartphones, devices for kids/teens----> lead to anxiety, depression, suicide, self harm. they put these kids on very harmful Psych drugs but instead they should just take away the stupid devices. At least 1/2 the kids diagnosed with ADHD would not have it if you took away video games/devices & made sure they got enough sleep at night. I tell parents all day. I hope they listen.
With my own kids, I limit the screen time < 60 minutes per day (and that's a max), they don't have devices & they will not have any devices until they are 14. when they are in Jr High, I will let them have simple phones with No Data that can call/text only.
Just read your response. Thank you for that. I agree fully with your points. Especially on the limitation of tech. There is a beautiful big world out there that both tests and rewards us. Tech is just an illusion. The Matrix writ large and uncomfortably true. Men need to be fathers. Teachers and guides. And take their daughters and sons into that big, beautiful world.
Wow that was quite a response.
We probably agree on more than that on which we disagree. Although given the propensity for women to support the leftist Democrats in the US, they don't get a pass for that.
Yes, men to need to stand up, be better role models and take role in raising their children. To do that we need a society - and a government - that values and rewards that. Ours does not. We need to stop equating the sexes. To value each for their distinct virtues. In other words, return to normalcy and sanity.
A lot of women would consider voting Republicans if they stop passing insane anti-abortion laws. As long as they do this, they make it impossible for women to vote Republican, and a lot of women would vote Dem not because they support leftist agenda, but to them this is ground zero of women's right and freedom. Whatever you may think of abortion, this is the fact.
If you ask me, I think DeSantis really shot himself in the foot. If he had real galls, he could've brought the laws to reflect the national consensus, and tout FL as the model with the previous 16 weeks legal period. But he caved and showed he's a wimp after all, and he knows it too when signed this latest bill at night with no press and no fanfare. If Republicans would stop being so far right on this issue, a lot of women would finally be free to have choice not just about their own bodies but choice of which party to vote for.
Yea I know a lot of women who would vote GOP if they were more moderate on abortion. They don't need to be so extreme. Nor do Dems. they are both too extreme. 70% of Americans believe abortion should be legal, with some restrictions. They need to quit the extreme positions.
As I've posted elsewhere, I agree with you completely. Republicans are losing elections we should win because of this idiotic position on abortion. And despite your likely view of me as a troglodyte, I find it appalling that men don't recoil at the notion of telling someone they have zero suzerainity over their own bodies. I get it that it stops when a fetus is viable and transforms to infanticide but that's not the case at 12-15 or 16 weeks. DeSantis did himself no favors on that one. And if someone opposes abortion - great. Work to educate and offer alternatives. But don't impose your views on others.
Feminisms biggest detractor is that is focuses on discounting and wholly devaluing men. They are not binary choices. Instead feminism should be promoting strong women alongside strong men. That’s where it has failed big time.
Re: the knitting circle- young female knitters have been some of the most viscous on line starting in 2014... they mobbed non-conformists, ie those who don't march to LEFTISM on instagram creating a ‘purity spiral’ - anything Trump, right wing, patriotic, Christian was attacked. At the largest knitting on-line site Ravelry - knitters displaying any of those traits had their work taken down, they were ostracized, banished and mobbed. Young women today can be very viscous. And an embarassment compared to generations in the past.
They DO stick together, viscous, to the vicious exclusion of those with greater fluidity!
Re: the knitting circle- young female knitters were some of the most viscous on-line starting 2014... they mobbed non-conformists (to them, folks who wouldn’t salute leftists positions) on line creating a ‘purity spiral’ - anything Trump, right wing, patriotic, Christian was attacked in that community. At the largest knitting on-line site Ravelry - knitters displaying any of those traits had their work taken down, they were ostracized and banished and mobbed. Young women today can be very viscous.
Ravelry, the knitting coven, quickly became a psychotic witch’s brew. The utter worst of women (and I am one.
A guy goes to the Post Office to apply for a job. The interviewer asks him,
"Are you allergic to anything?" He replies, "Yes, caffeine."
"Have you ever been in the military service?" "Yes," he says, "I was in Iraq for two years."
The interviewer says, "That will give you 5 extra points toward employment."
Then he asks, "Are you disabled in any way?"
The guy says, "Yes. A bomb exploded near me and I lost both of my testicles.
The interviewer grimaces and then says, "OK. You've got enough points for me to hire you right now.
Our normal hours are from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. You can start tomorrow at 10:00 - and plan on starting at 10:00 A.M. every day."
The guy is puzzled and asks, "If the work hours are from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., why don't you want me here until 10:00 A.M.?"
"This is a government job," the interviewer says, "For the first two hours, we just stand around drinking coffee and scratching our balls.
No point in you coming in for that."
🤣🤣🤣
There is something to that view. When I entered the Air Force Academy in 1963, there was a poem prominently displayed over the entrance. It was titled "The Coming American", authored by Sam Walter Foss, and it began, "Bring me men to match my mountains; / Bring me men to match my plains; / Men with empires in their purpose / And new eras in their brains . . ." It was a paeon to masculinity, and an inspiration to young men. It is no longer there at the Academy; removed when women were admitted to the classes of cadets. Now, I fully understand and accept that women have the capability and the right to pursue their dreams in the Air Force or any field of endeavor, but I do not believe that female progress has to denigrate or dismiss male characteristics, nor do I think that women need to imitate those characteristics to succeed. The current concentration on female opportunities and advancement in all fields need not come at the suppression or imitation of men.
As a mother with a successful career, I agree with you
Women don't need to act like men to do well in their job
the current de-masculization going on in Hollywood & Leftist culture is harmful to everyone. we should encourage boys and men to embody strong masculine character traits
They should have added a sign and motto for women rather than removing the one for young men.
It’s also interesting to have the AF presume that the women attending didn’t feel the same sense of power. The poem could have been tweaked just a bit and it would have worked. Instead it was cast out. That’s the problem right there
Yes, the poem's use of "men" could easily be construed as "mankind", as women have obviously been historically instrumental in the pioneering spirit of the nation, accompanying their men into the wilderness, building and defending their homesteads and settlements.
We don’t have to be mountains like men. But women absolutely can move mountains. Why the need to strike down one sex for the other is beyond ridiculous.
Because it was 1963 not 2023. You are talking a 40 year difference. Now all you hear is first women to do this, first black woman, first Hispanic, first Asian, first Muslim, big fucking deal. Same with the nationally of men being the firsts. If a woman or man is qualified pick them. If you're picking for the first to occupy some position, you get what we have today. Box checkers who were hired just to check that box.
Well-said, James.
Let’s recognize the differences between the sexes (vive la difference!) and celebrate it too. Masculinity needs to be understood and encouraged.