I have to agree with Sebastian. I grew up very upper middle class. Dad was surgeon. Had nothing but private schools, the yacht and hunt club growing up. At 18 I enlisted in the Army. Took the riskiest MOS I saw, recon specialist. I wont get into all the details of basic training and AIT but I will say that I came out of it a different pe…
I have to agree with Sebastian. I grew up very upper middle class. Dad was surgeon. Had nothing but private schools, the yacht and hunt club growing up.
At 18 I enlisted in the Army. Took the riskiest MOS I saw, recon specialist.
I wont get into all the details of basic training and AIT but I will say that I came out of it a different person. (Though I pray to God, to this very day, that I never have to do another 25 mile road march with a full combat load in July). I got out of the Army after 4 years and then got called back for Desert Storm out of the IRR. Never got to see combat. The war ended too quickly for that. If I am honest, that still irks me. Its like being a bench warmer.
I went home after Desert Storm and started college. Two things...
1. I was astounded at the level of immaturity of my peers in school compared to myself and to the peers the same age I had just left in the Army.
2. I am convinced, to this very day, that the most destructive and the most dangerous kind of man is one that has never proven himself to himself, that has never been tested. Those are the guys with massive insecurities that manifest themselves in antisocial and violent ways. Once you have been tested and come through you know how strong and how capable your really are and you can face life bravely because you know you can endure or overcome whatever is thrown at you. You can approach life with an internal confidence that in turn makes it easier to do.
After attending a boarding high school (in the 90s) I found myself doing interviews for elite college programs alongside "peers" whose mommies were hovering over them and quizzing the tour leaders over things like how they'd handle bullies in the dorms. The mental age gap was quite apparent.
Had the same experience with exiting the service and entering civilian life at a university. I sought to test myself after conducting SAR in the USCG by climbing mountains and frozen waterfalls and doing extended solo adventures in Alaska.
I don't know that everyone has to go through an army training experience to approach life with confidence. But I would say your philosophy to life applies to women too. IME someone who has been tested and prove herself to herself is always someone who can handle life better with maturity.
On a separate note, there had been many cases of men who had been in the military who went on to commit extremely violent crimes. And I don't mean those who suffered from PTSD. Timothy McVeigh is one example.
Also, in recent times there seems to be some male veterans who lived extreme masculine militaristic life, only to turn middle age and suddenly declare themselves "women". I don't what you make of that, but they surely are the antithesis to what you expect a military experience would produce?
For the record I don't have any issue with the military. I abhor the way our government and society treat veterans. I am however quite disappointed at the men leading the military in recent times.
I agree that there are other ways to test oneself. Farm life seems to be one of them. As a person who did not grow up on a farm, I often find myself impressed by people, particularly women, who did. At a recent rodeo I noted how self confident and strong the women were who were tending their horses or minding their cattle.
That being said, I too am in favor of a mandatory period of service, ideally in the armed forces.
My brother is a Lt Col in the Air Farce(I mean Force :-D) and he confirms that since Obama anyone O-7 or higher is completely a politician and not a warrior. By the Left's design.
For the first time in my life this veteran has not recommended military service to anyone coming out of high school, the social engineering will get them killed.
I recently read Roosevelt's account of his time with the Rough Riders in Cuba. It brought him alive to me. He was wealthy and powerful; leading a comfortable life. He didn't have to go but he did. And he was definitely not hanging in the rear. His matter of fact bravery was riveting to me.
He was put in for the medal of honor but his enemies in the Senate overrode it. Later he was awarded it posthumously. He also was awarded the Nobel peace prize and he actually deserved it not like Obama who got it because he was black and a socialist.
Theodore Roosevelt is one of the presidents whom I love. A man in every sense of the word. My office is on Quentin Roosevelt Blvd and I still grieve for him on the loss of his beloved son in action in the air over France. I believe that TR wanted to command troops in WW I but, of course, he was thwarted in that effort. When I heard those despicable socialist pukes in NYC took down his statue at the Natural History Museum I wanted to get my hands on them. I won't go to that museum any more.
I know exactly what you are saying. I walked away from my classes in my junior year, destroying my GPA. After AIT, I went to jump school. After I hit the ground on my first jump, I cannot adequately describe the euphoria I felt, the adrenaline rush was fantastic. I wanted to get right back on the airplane and jump again.
After jump school, I went to Ft. Bragg to SF training and became a demolitionist. I spent two years in a SF A-Team. Unless you experience it, you cannot describe the philial love you have for your team mates. It is stronger than the love you have for your family.
These are men you would die for and they for you. Sixty years later it has stuck with me not as strong but it is there. I cannot visit the Vietnam War memorial in DC. It is too emotionally difficult for me. Even so, I wouldn't change a thing for my experience in the Army.
After, I went back to school, got good grades, got a job, got married and have had a good life but through it all those years in service have stuck with me and will stay with me until I die.
It isn't that I'm unhappy with the life I chose with wonderful children and rich friendships. But still. Perhaps it's why in my eighth decade, I still test myself with hard physical challenges. Perhaps compensation? Or a longing for what never was? Many female friends to whom I've confided my regrets say "but you don't know how it could have turned out - you could have been killed." A different way of looking at it. To me, I'll never know if I could have measured up. You have my deepest respect and admiration.
Both you and Bruce(and anyone else here of your vintage) should be very proud you were/are the antithesis of being a traditional 'boomer' who has generally ruined many parts of our society. My hat is off.
I am increasingly convinced that the country would be better off if we had compulsory military service for 18 yr olds.
It forces you to grow up. No mommy and daddy to bail you out. You gotta stand on your own and prove yourself.
It tests a young person, or it least it CAN test a young person, force them to their limits, force them to stretch.
It forces people of wildly different backgrounds to figure out how to work and live together even if they do not necessarily like each other. But it can also lead to greater understanding. My best friend in the service was a black kid from Detroit who's mother dragged him to the recruiting station because he was getting involved with gangs and here I was a white, prep school grad from Boston. But we got to be very close and always had each others back. He was also my roommate. Our other roommate was a redneck from Wyoming. A more diverse set of backgrounds, interests, tastes and POV on life you would be hard pressed to find. But it worked. Sure, we had our disagreements, even pissed each other off, but we trusted each other when it counted.
It teaches self respect and respect for others.
This country could use a lot more shared experiences and understanding.
I understand what you are saying. Whenever times have gotten tough in life since I got out of the Army, I always remind myself that I survived that and so I can survive whatever is in front of me too.
I agree with 100%. We need a universal draft. We draft everyone. The sick, lame and lazy. The able bodied personnel go into the military. People with disabilities but who are able to function can go into other services that don't require physical prowess. This way every citizen has skin in the game.
There would be no exemptions. If you have a family in need of a care giver, social services takes over. If you want to go to school after high school, you do it after military service. It works for the Swiss so why not here?
In ancient Rome the only people who could hold public office had to have served in the military. I'd love to see that happen here in the US.
I know Dubya doesn't have that many fans here, but he served 6 years in the Texas Air National Guard and flew F 102's. Just for the record. He was the last President who served.
I remember Will Ferrel did a special, imitating W, and at one point he talked about feeling remorse for people killed in operations he ordered as president, people in the crowd laughed but Ferrell stared them down in character and the laughter died.
I think he nailed that, it’s ridiculous to assume Bush wouldn't care about dead American service personnel
Like Bruce says, if there is a struggle between good and evil war is an option; currently I would say that struggle is between our globalist ruling class that grossly inflated a harsh flu to increase their wealth and the rest of us....
On active duty I served in Desert Storm and I got out of the Guard in 2002 because, if I was 150 miles from Baghdad in '91 and they chose not to take out Sodamn, why are we doing it in 2002? My comrades told me I made the right choice after they went on an 18 month tour only to return to failed marriages, etc. The globalist ruling class filled their pockets - when are we going to learn? Oh, Trump did. He used economic leverage to absolutely contain our adversaries and they kicked him out.
The globalist ruling class believes that they can use a praetorian guard to protect them and their assets. Our own imbecilic grifter in chief brays that he'll use F-16s and nukes against rebellious citizens. Maybe the good vs. evil scenario is closer than we think?
And, although I agree with you that most of the wars in recent memory have been bungles, there still are those times, when it really is a struggle between good and evil. Where the hard men are the only thing left standing against barbarism. Until human nature changes, I'm afraid we'll need men to accept that challenge.
I spent my 18th birthday (1974) in an Army recruiting office in LA and for me it was more a matter of survival that put me there - having grown up in an orphanage then a series of foster homes, having no parental support to fall back on, it was sink or swim and I didn't care if that meant being sent to Vietnam.
I read an excerpt from Dr. Jordan Peterson that said something almost EXACTLY stated by you (Wrung out Lemon) that it's important for young men to find a way for young men to channel their masculine energy into something "dangerous and useful or else that masculine energy will find negative way to manifest itself"
I think of those words everytime I see young (mostly men) in the news hiding behind black bloc out damaging property and generally threatening violence to anyone they disagree with.
I'm very fortunate, to have developed a strong drive to become independent and after the military the birth of my son only strengthened that drive.- I used the GI Bill to through college for my BS degree so I could provide for my son and ensure he had a dad he could always count on who would be there.
We took different paths and different times to get there but we both got there.
Thank you for your service. Your generation would have been my senior NCOs, drill sergeants, battalion and brigade commanders. Tough old bastards but learned a lot from them.
My first platoon sergeant did 3 tours of Vietnam. Jesus did he scare the crap out of me. Not a man to piss off. But I would see him with his wife and kids and he was like a puppy. LOL
Man, do I agree, especially with your point 2. I enlisted in 1988 and went to Germany where we snuck up to see our counterparts guarding a minefield... on their side of the fence. I then went to the Storm. I came back and went to school and was astounded at the mindset and actions of the 'privileged people' who are now in charge of things today. We have men calling themselves women and they are not ridiculed out of the room; we are accommodating them through use of force.
I still remember my counterpart guarding that minefield and the fence is being erected here precisely because we are risk adverse.
Gotta go as my volunteer firefight pager just went off...
#2 is so spot on. In my day, contact sports were a manly thing of battle. Many of today's young men think video games are manly which is the reason IMHO that many of them are so lost.
If you think a new non-violent method of testing men can be developed you missed the point of both WOL and Sebastian. Ditto with the hive mindset making boys disregard those the hive perceives as gay, feminine or immature. To be those things is not to be a man in the way Sebastian means. And that is okay. Every male does not need to be the same. But I for one am.eternally grateful for those who rise to or accept the challenge whether by going to a foreign war or addressing the war in their own neighborhood.
I agree with both points. Which is why I referenced neighborhoods. Also I have grave concerns about future, maybe current, military preparedness. As I survey the post WWII landscape my fear is that all that create an interconnected world so war will no longer be viable stuff has failed. It appears to me that a Sino/Russia/Middle East minus Israel coalition is a very real possibility. Gauging by the Chinese and Russian votes on the UN Security Council I think the US is seen as expendable. Expendable nations are useful for loot and plunder.
Aken, I do not entirely disagree with you but I think you miss the point.
Boys and men, at least the majority of them, to be the best they are capable of being, need to be tested physically, they need their ability to maintain emotional control and discipline in the face of stress tested, they need to prove to themselves and their peers that they are reliable and capable.
We talk a lot about the tails of the distribution today because that is where the marginalized are. But we need to focus on the vast majority in the middle of the curve because they have the largest impact on society.
And, despite the academic theories and the utopian fantasies of the left, human beings are still animals, we have not evolved all that much. We are still pack animals. We are social predators. This is true now and will likely be true for at least many more generations.
Biological drivers, even when we socially dismiss them, are still powerful, still a large part of our makeup. We act out these things subliminally even when they are at odds with our intellectual positions.
A simple example.....
Women will select the tallest, strongest looking man out of a group of men. Even the most rabid feminist will be attracted to a tall man with wealth and who displays a high level of alpha confidence over a small, beta male who pumps gas for a living. They would never say that, but it is what the majority of women RESPOND to. Just look at the swipe data on dating apps. 90% or women are chasing 10% or men. Why? Because women want a partner that makes them feel safe. Physically safe and emotionally safe. Safety means a man that can and WILL not only not physically hurt them but is capable of protecting them from others who would. It means having the resources to feel safe that you will not lack for a roof or food or that any offspring will not lack for either. Even women that are entirely capable of doing those things themselves are attracted to men who can bring that. Its genetic. What we need and what we desire are not precisely the same. Key to this, it a man's willingness to be generous with his resources. Hence one of the reasons even a tall, handsome, well built, wealthy man can be less appealing to a woman than an otherwise lesser catch who is generous. It is one reason women will notice how much you tip on a date or how you treat the waiter.
Women are attracted to civilized monsters. They want THEIR monster. Look at all the female oriented fantasy literature such as the Twilight Saga or at the extremes 50 Shades of Gray or Beauty and the Beast.
So, what does that mean? It means that men are incentivized to be civilized monsters and it means that the ones that are are the ones that pass on their genes.
I disagree that men are anymore capable of a hive mindset than women and I would also suggest that when that occurs it is generally among younger men. In fact, I would argue that women are far more likely to do that than are men. They are generally more social than men.
Look to nature. You see constantly, whether talking about elephants or whales or chimpanzees, young males are excluded from the mating pool and pushed to the side socially. They are not in the game. So, they band together as a group until they are integrated at full maturity. But if you look at older men, they are more like lone wolves, less social, more focused on providing and protecting than on playing. Most of my married friends, when they do social things, most often do it with their wives or children. Yes, they will play golf or meet for drinks, but they do not socialize to the degree or in the same ways (generally) that women do.
Ask any guy that has tried asking a girl out in college or to dance in a bar just how women move in protective social groups. That behavior transfers into marriage and motherhood as well. No more dangerous group in the world than a group of angry mothers with social media.
I agree that we need to consider the boys and men who do not or cannot fit the general norm, but that does not mean that the norm is without utility or is wrong and we should never engage in allowing the tails of the distribution to wag the much much larger dog int he middle.
" No more dangerous group in the world than a group of angry mothers with social media."
I detest the Twitter Mob as much as anyone, but I hope you said that as a hyperbole. Because an angry group of mothers have never grouped together to commit actual violence, whereas cases of group of men committing violence on local to international levels are too numerous to count.
I was actually thinking more at the local community or even the state level. When mothers collectively get riled up about something they are quick to organize and respond. Could be a school issue like removing a curriculum they believe in or allowing boys to use their daughters locker room. Could be a public safety issue like the town putting a half way house near an elementary school. They just all seem to know each other and how to reach each other and coordinate a response to something. Men just do not seem to organize quite so quickly or as passionately in general. There are always exceptions.
And, women are violent and destructive in different ways generally. Though, and it seems to be an increasing phenomenon, they certainly can be physically violent. After all, 40% of all domestic violence incidents are committed by women. But, that said, women are, in general, more likely to attack at the reputational and emotional levels. Women/girls will attack a persons emotional vulnerabilities which can be even more devastating. After all, you do not hear about kids committing suicide because they were harassed by a bunch of boys online but God knows we have at least few cases of that each year where teen girls or young women harass and torture someone to the point they kill themselves.
But this makes a certain kind of sense. Every human being wants some kind of power either to protect themselves or to hurt an enemy. MOST women lack the physical power or MOST men so they require a different form of weapon. The emotional battlefield, the psychological battlefield is the one they are best equipped to win on, sometimes with devastating consequences.
And, BTW, there have been more than a few wars started under female leadership. I think of Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, heck...even Margaret Thatcher. Sure, women are less likely to take an active participation in war, though that is changing too, look at the Israeli military or even the number of female fighter pilots the US has now, but they have always been readily willing to send their men off to war. Go back as far as Sparta or the Persians. Or even consider the odd white woman in the south that would encourage their men to lynch a black man for looking at them wrong. Women are not passive angels. They too are pack predators. They just are just assassins rather than knights.
Can you cite where you got the stats that 40% of all DV are committed by women? I find this claim dubious. Also, DV cannot be compared this way because men can kill women with their bare hands. It doesn't work the other way around. That doesn't make DV right either way, but DV against women can do substantially more harm.
As for the women leaders like Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, etc. you brought up, it's not convincing because they were a few women striving to hold on to power in an otherwise totally male dominant world of geopolitics. They had to play like men or else they would've been dethroned. If the worlds' leaders are women and geopolitics are dominated by women, I would bet there would be a lot fewer wars and a lot less violence. However, I will concede that such a world does not mean it would be better. In fact I think it could be just as much a shit hole. I can see a women-dominated world can bring a whole load of issues as well. My only contention is that it would be less violent.
American Psychology Association -- This is self reported data, not FBI stats.
Believe me when I tell you that the researchers were just as surprised.
I chalk it up to the following...
1. We pay more attention to the men that hit or hit back because when a man does the consequences are generally harsher. Same reason we shame a man who hits a smaller man. Seems unfair.
2. We tend to disregard when women physically assault men. If a man hits a woman in a bar everyone wants him arrested or beat up. If a women hits a man, first people laugh then they wonder what he did to deserve it.
3. There are a lot of women who know that there is nothing a man can do if she hits him. If he hits back he is wrong and will be at least shamed if not arrested if she claims he hit her first. There are plenty of nasty crazy women that know that there is nothing a man can do to strike back that will not make it worse for him. So...they are free to act. If he calls the cops the odds are that the cops will take HIM away or at best they will dismiss what he says. Unless cops SEE a women hit a man, there is literally nothing they can or will do and everyone, male and female knows it. Even then, cops are very unlikely to arrest her unless a weapon is involved and prosecutors are even less likely to not just settle it.
Women are not helpless little angels without agency. They are perfectly capable of being nasty as any man and just as capable of violence when they think they can get away with it.
But, socially we have said that it is NEVER acceptable to hit a woman, ever. No matter what she does. We have no such rule for women.
I strongly disagree on this one. Men are just more overt. Women are more covert so while the damage their misplaced idealism creates is less obvious, it is likely to be longer term. Like trying to turn genetic males into something they by nature are not.
You're saying women are turning genetic males into something they by nature are not? How so?
I agree there are some Munchausen by Proxy type moms who are "transing" their sons. But beyond that, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
And if you're saying women online are causing men to become something they're not...well, if men just do whatever women tells them when women gather in a group, then problems like domestic violence and rape would be obsolete long ago. And we wouldn't have nearly as many wars as we have had. If women gather together and tell Putin to stop his war and tell Biden to stop flaming this proxy war, would they stop? Most women can't even get their husband to remember to put up the toilet seats or do the dishes.
Also you're saying men have no agency and can't think for themselves. That argument doesn't hold up well either for men, or when it's used to excuse women for their issues. If people behave in ways that goes against their nature or beliefs because some mob of strangers online tells them to, it's on them.
"And we wouldn't have nearly as many wars as we have had. If women gather together and tell Putin to stop his war and tell Biden to stop flaming this proxy war, would they stop? Most women can't even get their husband to remember to put up the toilet seats"
In the 2020 election, 57% of women voted for Biden. The majority of those were under 45 years old and unmarried. Its kind of amusing for you to ask, even rhetorically, why women can’t stop Biden from “flaming this proxy war” since women are the cohort most responsible for his election. Ironically , in doing so women rejected the man who managed to keep us out of any new foreign wars and dissuaded Putin from starting them.
BTW, I always thought the complaint about men is that we don’t put the toilet seat down. It’s telling that you never hear of men complaining that women don’t put the seat up
Regarding Biden, let's all be real. Nobody--that's Nobody--voted "For" Biden. In 2020 majority of the women voted against Trump, as did a whole lot of men. Trump is such an anomaly that breaks so many people's brains, I don't think they can see past him to know let alone care what his policies were. Biden was just the Democratic Party's chosen candidate to crown. They rammed him down registered Democrats' throats. By the time the general election came along, those voters, women or not, would've voted for a glass of water (as Pelosi said) as long as it wasn't Trump.
In any event, I believe you know well that women tend to vote Dems because traditionally Dems have more women-friendly policies (though that's very much changing). Republican policies were less so, and they are staunchly anti-choice. All these are the more influential reasons why more women don't vote Republican, or someone who get the country out of war. They didn't not vote R because they were ok with US being in more wars. But yes, they prioritized their immediate well being over foreign policies. That doesn't mean they were for those Biden foreign policies.
As for toilet seats, I didn't say men can make women do anything by mere words either. Fundamentally, short of threat or force, no one can make anyone do anything they don't want to do just by complaining, objecting, or griping. It's not a men or women thing. That was my point.
So how did voting against Trump work out for women, let alone men?
Hmmm, record inflation , baby formula shortages, record female teen suicides, promoting adolescent genital mutilation, record fentanyl deaths, record homicides… If you think those outcomes are “more women friendly” then what we experienced during the Trump administration then by all means cheer Biden and the policies he and his flunkies have implemented and pat yourself on the back for facilitating them.
Real men don’t need war to validate themselves. What they do need is the opportunity to engage in meaningful employment so they can marry and raise a family. Real men validate themselves by investigating the things that go bump in the night, educating their daughters on how to deal with “mature” men who would sexualize them and stand up to the woke mob who try and convince them that if they bind their breasts and strap on a dildo they can be a man. Real men teach their daughters that men and women are complimentary creatures whose bond is essential if civilization is to survive. Real men put the toilet seat down when they are finished and never demand that women reciprocate by putting it up when they’re done
No I said trying to turn them into something they are not. Nor did I reference transgender men, (although that might be a psychological reaction to the wholesale emasculation of men). And most of the rest of your comment is illustrative of trying to turn men into something they are not. Women denning up on social media to denigrate men, with #MeToo, for example. A fella is a bad, bad man if he won't put the seat down, without any grasp of exactly how trivial that is in the overall scheme of things. And yes there are bad men out that - rapists and violent abusers. But trying to label men in general that way is whatever the opposite of mysogyny is. IMO it is a mistake to emasculate men in this manner because for the most part men recognize that they need women to reproduce which is necessary for a stable society. Yet good men are rejected at too many turns by modern woman who thinks she does not need a man. Instead she replaces him with government largesse - the village which raises her child. And reportedly there is rampant anxiety, depression, and general malaise among those children.
You are taking everything I say completely out of context. What you're saying is so far from the one point I made, I don't even know if we're having the same conversation. You can of course go on and express whatever you feel unjust, but that's you talking about something else, and I am not part of that conversation.
So I'll just reiterate the one point I was making: Women can't make men do things, or turn them into anything.
Let me ask you this: If women simply by saying something as a group can make men do things, then why aren't those men in the government of Iran cowering in tears right now how hurt they are by all the Iranian women marching on the streets? Why instead are they in actually shooting them with guns and killing them? Also, why are the Taliban not bawling that women got together to try to go to school? But instead they are shutting them down and poisoning them?
And you still haven't answered my question why women can't just demand Putin and Biden to stop it and start playing nice.
That is strawman logic. But I think a valid point nevertheless. I giggled when I read your opening sentence because that is what I think about your statements as well. So likely we are just "talking past" one another. So I'll try again and be warned I had a related conversation about this recently so I have been giving it some thought. Also I always support the underdog and at this point in our society I think that is the traditional male. I also am.95% sure that I define that differently than do you because I see traditional masculinity as very positive and you, or perhaps more correctly the women whose POV you are representing, do not. I am a late boomer and in my lifetime I have witnessed the rise of birth control on demand and the freedom associated therewith, the rise of "2nd wave" feminism and all that it has wrought, the long-overdue of equality of education for women and all that it has flowed therefrom. And while each one of those things is wonderful as an isolated achievement each one nevertheless has consequences for the larger society and not all of those are good. For example even though we have readily available birth control there is more demand, in both the sense of need for and strident insistence upon, abortion. Without regard for the unborn being. That is elevating womanhood above others. Birth control is wonderful. Nobody should have an unwanted pregnancy. And let me anticipate the failure of birth control and inability of some to use "the pill" by saying first that is a small number and there are alternatives. In my mind the problem with "2nd wave" feminists is that they were dissatisfied with the achievement of first wave so they coalesced and did their thing. Which to me, and I could be wrong, means establishing the right to live life on their own terms. Fine they elevated their perspective above others. They demeaned women who valued traditional two-parent families who did not flock to the workforce. They demeaned women who flocked to the work force and were overcome by the expectation that they could and should do it all. If they got married they filed for divorce when the going got tough, and it always does. They married multiple times and had children with multiple men. They denied good fathers access to their children and utilized the court system to make sure the fathers paid and if that was not viable they utilized government entitlements. Before long men were not necessary for anything beyond the sperm donation and eighteen, sometimes 18+, years of checks. I think of it as the MurphyBrownification of the American family. Much of this was made possible by the impact of higher education achievements by women. A very noteworthy and worthwhile achievement. Now it is close to 2 out of 3 college graduates are women. Human resources departments are dominated by women. As a result most corporations and institutions are dominated by feminine values. This matters. Women were right to resist them being dominated by male values. But societal values should never be decided by to the victor go the spoils . That is destructive to society at large. A group, whether it is a gender group, a racial group, an ethnic group, a religious group, or any other identifiable group, does not ultimately succeed if it does so by marginalizing another group. And that is what "2nd wave" feminism has done to men IMO. I had to edit because I forgot to say that the Iran and Taliban examples illustrate the same thing except where women are marginalized.
So Lynne, we most certainly are not talking about the same subject, as again, my point was only that women can't make men doing anything. And neither can men make women do anything. I've lived long enough to see that short of threat and force, no one can ever really change anyone else's mind on anything, or make anyone else change or do anything they don't themselves want to do in the first place.
As to your many other points, I do see where you're coming from. In terms of assessing societal problems, there are certainly levels of truths to what you said. The only thing I would disagree on is I think you place too much blame on second-wave feminismI don't think all these problems are entirely second-wave women's faults. I would agree that their advocacy wasn't perfect, and their solutions weren't perfect. I agree that in fact, in pushing some things, they devalued some other good things, and not for the better. But it's not fair to place the blame so entirely on the second wave. Societal changes happen by osmosis. Following your method, I can also take it back even further and say it's men's fault after all. Because if men hadn't treated women so completely as properties in the old days, and then as second class citizens, then there would've been no need for feminism in the first place. I can argue that if men treated women as equals and fairly when they ran the world, they could've created a world that was better, and we would never have come to all this.
All that said, I think the men vs women debate today is flawed, in that the real conflict we're having is class divide. (And for the record, no I'm not a Marxist or socialist. I think radical leftists who think Marxism is The Way are morons.) Back to the subject, the battle of sexes debate is IMO just a diversion and we're all erroneously attributing our inabilities to personally get ahead to the opposite sex. Common men today feel like they're being put down because it seems like women are getting all the opportunities and making all the rules. Women feel like they're still behind and men still have all the power. You know why they both feel this way? IMO it's because the small selective group of men at top of the food chain. While common men perceive women to have taken over, women are actually in fact, as you said, in HR departments. They're not in the Board room. They're not at Davos. So women look at these elite men who hold real power, control everything, and can get away with everything, and they feel they're still powerless. And men, most of them who aren't in this elite group, feel like they're ceding grounds, and doing everything right as best as they can, and they can't understand why women are still finding problems with "men". What both common men and women need to realize IMO is that they're actually just fighting for scraps against each other, when in fact a lot of problems with how things are today are caused by the concentration of power at the very top. They have the power to shape the world. But they're more than happy for the masses to in-fight each other, be it sex, or race, or whatever. As long as the masses are pointing fingers at each other, and don't notice the real culprits are the ones on top.
This whole scenario is also playing out in the dating world of younger generations too. Check out this episode by this really articulate young woman on YouTube where she explains this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hqqy3dzQgo. I also think you might like what she has to say in a lot of her other episodes.
And on the issue of abortion, I think at this point this is a phony controversy, and the politicians are just trying to milk it dry for votes. The majority of the country actually agree on where they stand. By and large we have a consensus. And abortion rate has been going down. So far down, in fact, that it's not even the main purpose of Planned Parenthood anymore. The only people who disagree are the far left and the far right. And unfortunately for the vast middle they are the ones holding the issue hostage. And none of the would allow an honest discussion about it.
Also, I don't think people, men or women, really make personal life decisions based on social agenda. If someone wants to be a traditional wife and they're in love with a man and they're happy together, they won't make a decision not to because some feminists tell them not to. If a woman divorces and fights to have custody of the kids, it's not because feminists tell them to. It's because divorces are messy and a couple who fall out often hate each other. It's personal. And IRL, there are very few women who really think they don't need men (talking about heterosexuals ofc). Most people, men or women, want to find someone they can fall in love with and have a life with a partner.
What feminism did do was to open up a lot more options of how people can manage or mismanage their lives when things go south. And people are not very good at making good decisions. So here we are.
We are discussing the same topic but different issues perhaps. While I certainly agree that an individual woman may not be able to force a man to do anything, my point is that women in general have considerable societal influence over men at this point in time. Ask any incel.
Or divorced dad who wants to be a good dad. He is largely dependent on the goid will of the mother. But my most significant point is that for a group, any group, to achieve or maintain it's power by marginalizing another group is wrong. And, IMO, intentionally or unintentionally women as a group have done that to men. I do not mean to sound so harsh as to 2nd wave feminists. They have drawn my ire to illustrate my point but it is true of all of the this group or that group histrionics. And I do disagree with your argument that those feminists are only reacting to being oppressed in the past. Even if that is true, and I am not convinced it is, two wrongs don't make a right as the old saw goes. This is something that troubles me greatly - when a group idealizes its oppression/victimhood to instill change but the only change instilled is substituting one preferred group for another. How does that help society as a whole? I think I use the word group whereas you use class. I do not know why but when I hear class I automatically think socioeconomics. For a different example, the trans group insisting on mainstreaming its acceptance to the point of biological males participating in the hard fought and won arena of women's sports. Does the perceived oppression of trans people justify the marginalization of those female athletes? Not in any sane world.
Boys play more violent physical games than little girls do. It is who we are, driven that way by evolution. In a grade school yard, how many little girls are rolling around on the ground wrestling? I'll give you the answer...none.
Little girls take dance. little boys are outside trying to kill each other (metaphorically).
I have to agree with Sebastian. I grew up very upper middle class. Dad was surgeon. Had nothing but private schools, the yacht and hunt club growing up.
At 18 I enlisted in the Army. Took the riskiest MOS I saw, recon specialist.
I wont get into all the details of basic training and AIT but I will say that I came out of it a different person. (Though I pray to God, to this very day, that I never have to do another 25 mile road march with a full combat load in July). I got out of the Army after 4 years and then got called back for Desert Storm out of the IRR. Never got to see combat. The war ended too quickly for that. If I am honest, that still irks me. Its like being a bench warmer.
I went home after Desert Storm and started college. Two things...
1. I was astounded at the level of immaturity of my peers in school compared to myself and to the peers the same age I had just left in the Army.
2. I am convinced, to this very day, that the most destructive and the most dangerous kind of man is one that has never proven himself to himself, that has never been tested. Those are the guys with massive insecurities that manifest themselves in antisocial and violent ways. Once you have been tested and come through you know how strong and how capable your really are and you can face life bravely because you know you can endure or overcome whatever is thrown at you. You can approach life with an internal confidence that in turn makes it easier to do.
After attending a boarding high school (in the 90s) I found myself doing interviews for elite college programs alongside "peers" whose mommies were hovering over them and quizzing the tour leaders over things like how they'd handle bullies in the dorms. The mental age gap was quite apparent.
Had the same experience with exiting the service and entering civilian life at a university. I sought to test myself after conducting SAR in the USCG by climbing mountains and frozen waterfalls and doing extended solo adventures in Alaska.
I don't know that everyone has to go through an army training experience to approach life with confidence. But I would say your philosophy to life applies to women too. IME someone who has been tested and prove herself to herself is always someone who can handle life better with maturity.
On a separate note, there had been many cases of men who had been in the military who went on to commit extremely violent crimes. And I don't mean those who suffered from PTSD. Timothy McVeigh is one example.
Also, in recent times there seems to be some male veterans who lived extreme masculine militaristic life, only to turn middle age and suddenly declare themselves "women". I don't what you make of that, but they surely are the antithesis to what you expect a military experience would produce?
For the record I don't have any issue with the military. I abhor the way our government and society treat veterans. I am however quite disappointed at the men leading the military in recent times.
I agree that there are other ways to test oneself. Farm life seems to be one of them. As a person who did not grow up on a farm, I often find myself impressed by people, particularly women, who did. At a recent rodeo I noted how self confident and strong the women were who were tending their horses or minding their cattle.
That being said, I too am in favor of a mandatory period of service, ideally in the armed forces.
My brother is a Lt Col in the Air Farce(I mean Force :-D) and he confirms that since Obama anyone O-7 or higher is completely a politician and not a warrior. By the Left's design.
For the first time in my life this veteran has not recommended military service to anyone coming out of high school, the social engineering will get them killed.
Like my English teacher said: the exception proves the rule.
"I am however quite disappointed at the men leading the military in recent times."
You and me both. The higher ranks put career over principle. They suck up to the woke monsters and cave into their demands.
Like "Admiral" Levine.....lol?
She, he, it is a sweatheart.
Theodore Roosevelt - man in the arena.
That should be mandatory reading in schools.
I recently read Roosevelt's account of his time with the Rough Riders in Cuba. It brought him alive to me. He was wealthy and powerful; leading a comfortable life. He didn't have to go but he did. And he was definitely not hanging in the rear. His matter of fact bravery was riveting to me.
He was put in for the medal of honor but his enemies in the Senate overrode it. Later he was awarded it posthumously. He also was awarded the Nobel peace prize and he actually deserved it not like Obama who got it because he was black and a socialist.
Theodore Roosevelt is one of the presidents whom I love. A man in every sense of the word. My office is on Quentin Roosevelt Blvd and I still grieve for him on the loss of his beloved son in action in the air over France. I believe that TR wanted to command troops in WW I but, of course, he was thwarted in that effort. When I heard those despicable socialist pukes in NYC took down his statue at the Natural History Museum I wanted to get my hands on them. I won't go to that museum any more.
Woke pukes!
Both can be true.
The human stain? Boy you're the cheery one. Aren't you? When you are not stoned, do you ever have happy thought?
I often have that affect on people. I bring brightness and cheer into peoples' lives. It's a gift.
I know exactly what you are saying. I walked away from my classes in my junior year, destroying my GPA. After AIT, I went to jump school. After I hit the ground on my first jump, I cannot adequately describe the euphoria I felt, the adrenaline rush was fantastic. I wanted to get right back on the airplane and jump again.
After jump school, I went to Ft. Bragg to SF training and became a demolitionist. I spent two years in a SF A-Team. Unless you experience it, you cannot describe the philial love you have for your team mates. It is stronger than the love you have for your family.
These are men you would die for and they for you. Sixty years later it has stuck with me not as strong but it is there. I cannot visit the Vietnam War memorial in DC. It is too emotionally difficult for me. Even so, I wouldn't change a thing for my experience in the Army.
After, I went back to school, got good grades, got a job, got married and have had a good life but through it all those years in service have stuck with me and will stay with me until I die.
Thank you for your devoted service.
Thanks.
Ah, Cat, the road not taken.
It isn't that I'm unhappy with the life I chose with wonderful children and rich friendships. But still. Perhaps it's why in my eighth decade, I still test myself with hard physical challenges. Perhaps compensation? Or a longing for what never was? Many female friends to whom I've confided my regrets say "but you don't know how it could have turned out - you could have been killed." A different way of looking at it. To me, I'll never know if I could have measured up. You have my deepest respect and admiration.
A good life lived, is reward enough. I don't know you, except what I see on this BBS but you seem to be a kind person and that is good enough for me.
I too am in my 8th decade.
Both you and Bruce(and anyone else here of your vintage) should be very proud you were/are the antithesis of being a traditional 'boomer' who has generally ruined many parts of our society. My hat is off.
I am increasingly convinced that the country would be better off if we had compulsory military service for 18 yr olds.
It forces you to grow up. No mommy and daddy to bail you out. You gotta stand on your own and prove yourself.
It tests a young person, or it least it CAN test a young person, force them to their limits, force them to stretch.
It forces people of wildly different backgrounds to figure out how to work and live together even if they do not necessarily like each other. But it can also lead to greater understanding. My best friend in the service was a black kid from Detroit who's mother dragged him to the recruiting station because he was getting involved with gangs and here I was a white, prep school grad from Boston. But we got to be very close and always had each others back. He was also my roommate. Our other roommate was a redneck from Wyoming. A more diverse set of backgrounds, interests, tastes and POV on life you would be hard pressed to find. But it worked. Sure, we had our disagreements, even pissed each other off, but we trusted each other when it counted.
It teaches self respect and respect for others.
This country could use a lot more shared experiences and understanding.
I understand what you are saying. Whenever times have gotten tough in life since I got out of the Army, I always remind myself that I survived that and so I can survive whatever is in front of me too.
You three could be guests in Bari’s podcast. So interesting. Thank you all for your service. And for sharing.
Thank you.
I agree with 100%. We need a universal draft. We draft everyone. The sick, lame and lazy. The able bodied personnel go into the military. People with disabilities but who are able to function can go into other services that don't require physical prowess. This way every citizen has skin in the game.
There would be no exemptions. If you have a family in need of a care giver, social services takes over. If you want to go to school after high school, you do it after military service. It works for the Swiss so why not here?
In ancient Rome the only people who could hold public office had to have served in the military. I'd love to see that happen here in the US.
yes the last 5-6 presidents have all been draft dodgers
I know Dubya doesn't have that many fans here, but he served 6 years in the Texas Air National Guard and flew F 102's. Just for the record. He was the last President who served.
I remember Will Ferrel did a special, imitating W, and at one point he talked about feeling remorse for people killed in operations he ordered as president, people in the crowd laughed but Ferrell stared them down in character and the laughter died.
I think he nailed that, it’s ridiculous to assume Bush wouldn't care about dead American service personnel
No so, Bush number 1 was a navy pilot during WW II and flew combat missions. Bush two flew fighters for the A. F.
The sexual predator Clinton dodged the draft. Obama never served but there was no draft. Trump dodged the draft. as did the ever senile Joe.
Welcome home, Cat. This Storm vet is very grateful as you guys trained us and a country to appreciate service.
Thanks Dan.
Like Bruce says, if there is a struggle between good and evil war is an option; currently I would say that struggle is between our globalist ruling class that grossly inflated a harsh flu to increase their wealth and the rest of us....
On active duty I served in Desert Storm and I got out of the Guard in 2002 because, if I was 150 miles from Baghdad in '91 and they chose not to take out Sodamn, why are we doing it in 2002? My comrades told me I made the right choice after they went on an 18 month tour only to return to failed marriages, etc. The globalist ruling class filled their pockets - when are we going to learn? Oh, Trump did. He used economic leverage to absolutely contain our adversaries and they kicked him out.
The globalist ruling class believes that they can use a praetorian guard to protect them and their assets. Our own imbecilic grifter in chief brays that he'll use F-16s and nukes against rebellious citizens. Maybe the good vs. evil scenario is closer than we think?
Thanks for this RT. For your honesty and insight.
And, although I agree with you that most of the wars in recent memory have been bungles, there still are those times, when it really is a struggle between good and evil. Where the hard men are the only thing left standing against barbarism. Until human nature changes, I'm afraid we'll need men to accept that challenge.
I spent my 18th birthday (1974) in an Army recruiting office in LA and for me it was more a matter of survival that put me there - having grown up in an orphanage then a series of foster homes, having no parental support to fall back on, it was sink or swim and I didn't care if that meant being sent to Vietnam.
I read an excerpt from Dr. Jordan Peterson that said something almost EXACTLY stated by you (Wrung out Lemon) that it's important for young men to find a way for young men to channel their masculine energy into something "dangerous and useful or else that masculine energy will find negative way to manifest itself"
I think of those words everytime I see young (mostly men) in the news hiding behind black bloc out damaging property and generally threatening violence to anyone they disagree with.
I'm very fortunate, to have developed a strong drive to become independent and after the military the birth of my son only strengthened that drive.- I used the GI Bill to through college for my BS degree so I could provide for my son and ensure he had a dad he could always count on who would be there.
PS: Thank you for your service brother!
And thank you for yours you have done well TG!
We took different paths and different times to get there but we both got there.
Thank you for your service. Your generation would have been my senior NCOs, drill sergeants, battalion and brigade commanders. Tough old bastards but learned a lot from them.
My first platoon sergeant did 3 tours of Vietnam. Jesus did he scare the crap out of me. Not a man to piss off. But I would see him with his wife and kids and he was like a puppy. LOL
Thank you for yours.
Man, do I agree, especially with your point 2. I enlisted in 1988 and went to Germany where we snuck up to see our counterparts guarding a minefield... on their side of the fence. I then went to the Storm. I came back and went to school and was astounded at the mindset and actions of the 'privileged people' who are now in charge of things today. We have men calling themselves women and they are not ridiculed out of the room; we are accommodating them through use of force.
I still remember my counterpart guarding that minefield and the fence is being erected here precisely because we are risk adverse.
Gotta go as my volunteer firefight pager just went off...
Stay safe and take care!
#2 is so spot on. In my day, contact sports were a manly thing of battle. Many of today's young men think video games are manly which is the reason IMHO that many of them are so lost.
I knew the end was near when I first saw two women "play" tennis via WII. They thought that they were literally playing tennis. So bizarre.
Totally agree. Football is nothing but a substitute for war.
Yep, football is a mock combat, complete with platoons, bombs, blitzes, body armor,, and the like.
Carlin did the best but on that.
Which, when you think about it, is not entirely a bad thing.
Neither is testing one's self.
Very well expressed. Thank you for your service.
Thank you for your service. Your second point hits home. Sportsball fans are slovenly and violent because they haven’t been tested, but use it as an outlet for their rage: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-root-for-pro-sportsball
Excellent reply thank you for your service
If you think a new non-violent method of testing men can be developed you missed the point of both WOL and Sebastian. Ditto with the hive mindset making boys disregard those the hive perceives as gay, feminine or immature. To be those things is not to be a man in the way Sebastian means. And that is okay. Every male does not need to be the same. But I for one am.eternally grateful for those who rise to or accept the challenge whether by going to a foreign war or addressing the war in their own neighborhood.
I agree with both points. Which is why I referenced neighborhoods. Also I have grave concerns about future, maybe current, military preparedness. As I survey the post WWII landscape my fear is that all that create an interconnected world so war will no longer be viable stuff has failed. It appears to me that a Sino/Russia/Middle East minus Israel coalition is a very real possibility. Gauging by the Chinese and Russian votes on the UN Security Council I think the US is seen as expendable. Expendable nations are useful for loot and plunder.
Aken, I do not entirely disagree with you but I think you miss the point.
Boys and men, at least the majority of them, to be the best they are capable of being, need to be tested physically, they need their ability to maintain emotional control and discipline in the face of stress tested, they need to prove to themselves and their peers that they are reliable and capable.
We talk a lot about the tails of the distribution today because that is where the marginalized are. But we need to focus on the vast majority in the middle of the curve because they have the largest impact on society.
And, despite the academic theories and the utopian fantasies of the left, human beings are still animals, we have not evolved all that much. We are still pack animals. We are social predators. This is true now and will likely be true for at least many more generations.
Biological drivers, even when we socially dismiss them, are still powerful, still a large part of our makeup. We act out these things subliminally even when they are at odds with our intellectual positions.
A simple example.....
Women will select the tallest, strongest looking man out of a group of men. Even the most rabid feminist will be attracted to a tall man with wealth and who displays a high level of alpha confidence over a small, beta male who pumps gas for a living. They would never say that, but it is what the majority of women RESPOND to. Just look at the swipe data on dating apps. 90% or women are chasing 10% or men. Why? Because women want a partner that makes them feel safe. Physically safe and emotionally safe. Safety means a man that can and WILL not only not physically hurt them but is capable of protecting them from others who would. It means having the resources to feel safe that you will not lack for a roof or food or that any offspring will not lack for either. Even women that are entirely capable of doing those things themselves are attracted to men who can bring that. Its genetic. What we need and what we desire are not precisely the same. Key to this, it a man's willingness to be generous with his resources. Hence one of the reasons even a tall, handsome, well built, wealthy man can be less appealing to a woman than an otherwise lesser catch who is generous. It is one reason women will notice how much you tip on a date or how you treat the waiter.
Women are attracted to civilized monsters. They want THEIR monster. Look at all the female oriented fantasy literature such as the Twilight Saga or at the extremes 50 Shades of Gray or Beauty and the Beast.
So, what does that mean? It means that men are incentivized to be civilized monsters and it means that the ones that are are the ones that pass on their genes.
I disagree that men are anymore capable of a hive mindset than women and I would also suggest that when that occurs it is generally among younger men. In fact, I would argue that women are far more likely to do that than are men. They are generally more social than men.
Look to nature. You see constantly, whether talking about elephants or whales or chimpanzees, young males are excluded from the mating pool and pushed to the side socially. They are not in the game. So, they band together as a group until they are integrated at full maturity. But if you look at older men, they are more like lone wolves, less social, more focused on providing and protecting than on playing. Most of my married friends, when they do social things, most often do it with their wives or children. Yes, they will play golf or meet for drinks, but they do not socialize to the degree or in the same ways (generally) that women do.
Ask any guy that has tried asking a girl out in college or to dance in a bar just how women move in protective social groups. That behavior transfers into marriage and motherhood as well. No more dangerous group in the world than a group of angry mothers with social media.
I agree that we need to consider the boys and men who do not or cannot fit the general norm, but that does not mean that the norm is without utility or is wrong and we should never engage in allowing the tails of the distribution to wag the much much larger dog int he middle.
" No more dangerous group in the world than a group of angry mothers with social media."
I detest the Twitter Mob as much as anyone, but I hope you said that as a hyperbole. Because an angry group of mothers have never grouped together to commit actual violence, whereas cases of group of men committing violence on local to international levels are too numerous to count.
I was actually thinking more at the local community or even the state level. When mothers collectively get riled up about something they are quick to organize and respond. Could be a school issue like removing a curriculum they believe in or allowing boys to use their daughters locker room. Could be a public safety issue like the town putting a half way house near an elementary school. They just all seem to know each other and how to reach each other and coordinate a response to something. Men just do not seem to organize quite so quickly or as passionately in general. There are always exceptions.
And, women are violent and destructive in different ways generally. Though, and it seems to be an increasing phenomenon, they certainly can be physically violent. After all, 40% of all domestic violence incidents are committed by women. But, that said, women are, in general, more likely to attack at the reputational and emotional levels. Women/girls will attack a persons emotional vulnerabilities which can be even more devastating. After all, you do not hear about kids committing suicide because they were harassed by a bunch of boys online but God knows we have at least few cases of that each year where teen girls or young women harass and torture someone to the point they kill themselves.
But this makes a certain kind of sense. Every human being wants some kind of power either to protect themselves or to hurt an enemy. MOST women lack the physical power or MOST men so they require a different form of weapon. The emotional battlefield, the psychological battlefield is the one they are best equipped to win on, sometimes with devastating consequences.
And, BTW, there have been more than a few wars started under female leadership. I think of Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, heck...even Margaret Thatcher. Sure, women are less likely to take an active participation in war, though that is changing too, look at the Israeli military or even the number of female fighter pilots the US has now, but they have always been readily willing to send their men off to war. Go back as far as Sparta or the Persians. Or even consider the odd white woman in the south that would encourage their men to lynch a black man for looking at them wrong. Women are not passive angels. They too are pack predators. They just are just assassins rather than knights.
Can you cite where you got the stats that 40% of all DV are committed by women? I find this claim dubious. Also, DV cannot be compared this way because men can kill women with their bare hands. It doesn't work the other way around. That doesn't make DV right either way, but DV against women can do substantially more harm.
As for the women leaders like Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, etc. you brought up, it's not convincing because they were a few women striving to hold on to power in an otherwise totally male dominant world of geopolitics. They had to play like men or else they would've been dethroned. If the worlds' leaders are women and geopolitics are dominated by women, I would bet there would be a lot fewer wars and a lot less violence. However, I will concede that such a world does not mean it would be better. In fact I think it could be just as much a shit hole. I can see a women-dominated world can bring a whole load of issues as well. My only contention is that it would be less violent.
American Psychology Association -- This is self reported data, not FBI stats.
Believe me when I tell you that the researchers were just as surprised.
I chalk it up to the following...
1. We pay more attention to the men that hit or hit back because when a man does the consequences are generally harsher. Same reason we shame a man who hits a smaller man. Seems unfair.
2. We tend to disregard when women physically assault men. If a man hits a woman in a bar everyone wants him arrested or beat up. If a women hits a man, first people laugh then they wonder what he did to deserve it.
3. There are a lot of women who know that there is nothing a man can do if she hits him. If he hits back he is wrong and will be at least shamed if not arrested if she claims he hit her first. There are plenty of nasty crazy women that know that there is nothing a man can do to strike back that will not make it worse for him. So...they are free to act. If he calls the cops the odds are that the cops will take HIM away or at best they will dismiss what he says. Unless cops SEE a women hit a man, there is literally nothing they can or will do and everyone, male and female knows it. Even then, cops are very unlikely to arrest her unless a weapon is involved and prosecutors are even less likely to not just settle it.
Women are not helpless little angels without agency. They are perfectly capable of being nasty as any man and just as capable of violence when they think they can get away with it.
But, socially we have said that it is NEVER acceptable to hit a woman, ever. No matter what she does. We have no such rule for women.
Well said. There is a reason poison was historically the woman's murder instrument.
I strongly disagree on this one. Men are just more overt. Women are more covert so while the damage their misplaced idealism creates is less obvious, it is likely to be longer term. Like trying to turn genetic males into something they by nature are not.
You're saying women are turning genetic males into something they by nature are not? How so?
I agree there are some Munchausen by Proxy type moms who are "transing" their sons. But beyond that, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
And if you're saying women online are causing men to become something they're not...well, if men just do whatever women tells them when women gather in a group, then problems like domestic violence and rape would be obsolete long ago. And we wouldn't have nearly as many wars as we have had. If women gather together and tell Putin to stop his war and tell Biden to stop flaming this proxy war, would they stop? Most women can't even get their husband to remember to put up the toilet seats or do the dishes.
Also you're saying men have no agency and can't think for themselves. That argument doesn't hold up well either for men, or when it's used to excuse women for their issues. If people behave in ways that goes against their nature or beliefs because some mob of strangers online tells them to, it's on them.
"And we wouldn't have nearly as many wars as we have had. If women gather together and tell Putin to stop his war and tell Biden to stop flaming this proxy war, would they stop? Most women can't even get their husband to remember to put up the toilet seats"
In the 2020 election, 57% of women voted for Biden. The majority of those were under 45 years old and unmarried. Its kind of amusing for you to ask, even rhetorically, why women can’t stop Biden from “flaming this proxy war” since women are the cohort most responsible for his election. Ironically , in doing so women rejected the man who managed to keep us out of any new foreign wars and dissuaded Putin from starting them.
BTW, I always thought the complaint about men is that we don’t put the toilet seat down. It’s telling that you never hear of men complaining that women don’t put the seat up
Regarding Biden, let's all be real. Nobody--that's Nobody--voted "For" Biden. In 2020 majority of the women voted against Trump, as did a whole lot of men. Trump is such an anomaly that breaks so many people's brains, I don't think they can see past him to know let alone care what his policies were. Biden was just the Democratic Party's chosen candidate to crown. They rammed him down registered Democrats' throats. By the time the general election came along, those voters, women or not, would've voted for a glass of water (as Pelosi said) as long as it wasn't Trump.
In any event, I believe you know well that women tend to vote Dems because traditionally Dems have more women-friendly policies (though that's very much changing). Republican policies were less so, and they are staunchly anti-choice. All these are the more influential reasons why more women don't vote Republican, or someone who get the country out of war. They didn't not vote R because they were ok with US being in more wars. But yes, they prioritized their immediate well being over foreign policies. That doesn't mean they were for those Biden foreign policies.
As for toilet seats, I didn't say men can make women do anything by mere words either. Fundamentally, short of threat or force, no one can make anyone do anything they don't want to do just by complaining, objecting, or griping. It's not a men or women thing. That was my point.
So how did voting against Trump work out for women, let alone men?
Hmmm, record inflation , baby formula shortages, record female teen suicides, promoting adolescent genital mutilation, record fentanyl deaths, record homicides… If you think those outcomes are “more women friendly” then what we experienced during the Trump administration then by all means cheer Biden and the policies he and his flunkies have implemented and pat yourself on the back for facilitating them.
Real men don’t need war to validate themselves. What they do need is the opportunity to engage in meaningful employment so they can marry and raise a family. Real men validate themselves by investigating the things that go bump in the night, educating their daughters on how to deal with “mature” men who would sexualize them and stand up to the woke mob who try and convince them that if they bind their breasts and strap on a dildo they can be a man. Real men teach their daughters that men and women are complimentary creatures whose bond is essential if civilization is to survive. Real men put the toilet seat down when they are finished and never demand that women reciprocate by putting it up when they’re done
No I said trying to turn them into something they are not. Nor did I reference transgender men, (although that might be a psychological reaction to the wholesale emasculation of men). And most of the rest of your comment is illustrative of trying to turn men into something they are not. Women denning up on social media to denigrate men, with #MeToo, for example. A fella is a bad, bad man if he won't put the seat down, without any grasp of exactly how trivial that is in the overall scheme of things. And yes there are bad men out that - rapists and violent abusers. But trying to label men in general that way is whatever the opposite of mysogyny is. IMO it is a mistake to emasculate men in this manner because for the most part men recognize that they need women to reproduce which is necessary for a stable society. Yet good men are rejected at too many turns by modern woman who thinks she does not need a man. Instead she replaces him with government largesse - the village which raises her child. And reportedly there is rampant anxiety, depression, and general malaise among those children.
You are taking everything I say completely out of context. What you're saying is so far from the one point I made, I don't even know if we're having the same conversation. You can of course go on and express whatever you feel unjust, but that's you talking about something else, and I am not part of that conversation.
So I'll just reiterate the one point I was making: Women can't make men do things, or turn them into anything.
Let me ask you this: If women simply by saying something as a group can make men do things, then why aren't those men in the government of Iran cowering in tears right now how hurt they are by all the Iranian women marching on the streets? Why instead are they in actually shooting them with guns and killing them? Also, why are the Taliban not bawling that women got together to try to go to school? But instead they are shutting them down and poisoning them?
And you still haven't answered my question why women can't just demand Putin and Biden to stop it and start playing nice.
That is strawman logic. But I think a valid point nevertheless. I giggled when I read your opening sentence because that is what I think about your statements as well. So likely we are just "talking past" one another. So I'll try again and be warned I had a related conversation about this recently so I have been giving it some thought. Also I always support the underdog and at this point in our society I think that is the traditional male. I also am.95% sure that I define that differently than do you because I see traditional masculinity as very positive and you, or perhaps more correctly the women whose POV you are representing, do not. I am a late boomer and in my lifetime I have witnessed the rise of birth control on demand and the freedom associated therewith, the rise of "2nd wave" feminism and all that it has wrought, the long-overdue of equality of education for women and all that it has flowed therefrom. And while each one of those things is wonderful as an isolated achievement each one nevertheless has consequences for the larger society and not all of those are good. For example even though we have readily available birth control there is more demand, in both the sense of need for and strident insistence upon, abortion. Without regard for the unborn being. That is elevating womanhood above others. Birth control is wonderful. Nobody should have an unwanted pregnancy. And let me anticipate the failure of birth control and inability of some to use "the pill" by saying first that is a small number and there are alternatives. In my mind the problem with "2nd wave" feminists is that they were dissatisfied with the achievement of first wave so they coalesced and did their thing. Which to me, and I could be wrong, means establishing the right to live life on their own terms. Fine they elevated their perspective above others. They demeaned women who valued traditional two-parent families who did not flock to the workforce. They demeaned women who flocked to the work force and were overcome by the expectation that they could and should do it all. If they got married they filed for divorce when the going got tough, and it always does. They married multiple times and had children with multiple men. They denied good fathers access to their children and utilized the court system to make sure the fathers paid and if that was not viable they utilized government entitlements. Before long men were not necessary for anything beyond the sperm donation and eighteen, sometimes 18+, years of checks. I think of it as the MurphyBrownification of the American family. Much of this was made possible by the impact of higher education achievements by women. A very noteworthy and worthwhile achievement. Now it is close to 2 out of 3 college graduates are women. Human resources departments are dominated by women. As a result most corporations and institutions are dominated by feminine values. This matters. Women were right to resist them being dominated by male values. But societal values should never be decided by to the victor go the spoils . That is destructive to society at large. A group, whether it is a gender group, a racial group, an ethnic group, a religious group, or any other identifiable group, does not ultimately succeed if it does so by marginalizing another group. And that is what "2nd wave" feminism has done to men IMO. I had to edit because I forgot to say that the Iran and Taliban examples illustrate the same thing except where women are marginalized.
So Lynne, we most certainly are not talking about the same subject, as again, my point was only that women can't make men doing anything. And neither can men make women do anything. I've lived long enough to see that short of threat and force, no one can ever really change anyone else's mind on anything, or make anyone else change or do anything they don't themselves want to do in the first place.
As to your many other points, I do see where you're coming from. In terms of assessing societal problems, there are certainly levels of truths to what you said. The only thing I would disagree on is I think you place too much blame on second-wave feminismI don't think all these problems are entirely second-wave women's faults. I would agree that their advocacy wasn't perfect, and their solutions weren't perfect. I agree that in fact, in pushing some things, they devalued some other good things, and not for the better. But it's not fair to place the blame so entirely on the second wave. Societal changes happen by osmosis. Following your method, I can also take it back even further and say it's men's fault after all. Because if men hadn't treated women so completely as properties in the old days, and then as second class citizens, then there would've been no need for feminism in the first place. I can argue that if men treated women as equals and fairly when they ran the world, they could've created a world that was better, and we would never have come to all this.
All that said, I think the men vs women debate today is flawed, in that the real conflict we're having is class divide. (And for the record, no I'm not a Marxist or socialist. I think radical leftists who think Marxism is The Way are morons.) Back to the subject, the battle of sexes debate is IMO just a diversion and we're all erroneously attributing our inabilities to personally get ahead to the opposite sex. Common men today feel like they're being put down because it seems like women are getting all the opportunities and making all the rules. Women feel like they're still behind and men still have all the power. You know why they both feel this way? IMO it's because the small selective group of men at top of the food chain. While common men perceive women to have taken over, women are actually in fact, as you said, in HR departments. They're not in the Board room. They're not at Davos. So women look at these elite men who hold real power, control everything, and can get away with everything, and they feel they're still powerless. And men, most of them who aren't in this elite group, feel like they're ceding grounds, and doing everything right as best as they can, and they can't understand why women are still finding problems with "men". What both common men and women need to realize IMO is that they're actually just fighting for scraps against each other, when in fact a lot of problems with how things are today are caused by the concentration of power at the very top. They have the power to shape the world. But they're more than happy for the masses to in-fight each other, be it sex, or race, or whatever. As long as the masses are pointing fingers at each other, and don't notice the real culprits are the ones on top.
This whole scenario is also playing out in the dating world of younger generations too. Check out this episode by this really articulate young woman on YouTube where she explains this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hqqy3dzQgo. I also think you might like what she has to say in a lot of her other episodes.
And on the issue of abortion, I think at this point this is a phony controversy, and the politicians are just trying to milk it dry for votes. The majority of the country actually agree on where they stand. By and large we have a consensus. And abortion rate has been going down. So far down, in fact, that it's not even the main purpose of Planned Parenthood anymore. The only people who disagree are the far left and the far right. And unfortunately for the vast middle they are the ones holding the issue hostage. And none of the would allow an honest discussion about it.
Also, I don't think people, men or women, really make personal life decisions based on social agenda. If someone wants to be a traditional wife and they're in love with a man and they're happy together, they won't make a decision not to because some feminists tell them not to. If a woman divorces and fights to have custody of the kids, it's not because feminists tell them to. It's because divorces are messy and a couple who fall out often hate each other. It's personal. And IRL, there are very few women who really think they don't need men (talking about heterosexuals ofc). Most people, men or women, want to find someone they can fall in love with and have a life with a partner.
What feminism did do was to open up a lot more options of how people can manage or mismanage their lives when things go south. And people are not very good at making good decisions. So here we are.
We are discussing the same topic but different issues perhaps. While I certainly agree that an individual woman may not be able to force a man to do anything, my point is that women in general have considerable societal influence over men at this point in time. Ask any incel.
Or divorced dad who wants to be a good dad. He is largely dependent on the goid will of the mother. But my most significant point is that for a group, any group, to achieve or maintain it's power by marginalizing another group is wrong. And, IMO, intentionally or unintentionally women as a group have done that to men. I do not mean to sound so harsh as to 2nd wave feminists. They have drawn my ire to illustrate my point but it is true of all of the this group or that group histrionics. And I do disagree with your argument that those feminists are only reacting to being oppressed in the past. Even if that is true, and I am not convinced it is, two wrongs don't make a right as the old saw goes. This is something that troubles me greatly - when a group idealizes its oppression/victimhood to instill change but the only change instilled is substituting one preferred group for another. How does that help society as a whole? I think I use the word group whereas you use class. I do not know why but when I hear class I automatically think socioeconomics. For a different example, the trans group insisting on mainstreaming its acceptance to the point of biological males participating in the hard fought and won arena of women's sports. Does the perceived oppression of trans people justify the marginalization of those female athletes? Not in any sane world.
Boys play more violent physical games than little girls do. It is who we are, driven that way by evolution. In a grade school yard, how many little girls are rolling around on the ground wrestling? I'll give you the answer...none.
Little girls take dance. little boys are outside trying to kill each other (metaphorically).