|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 13, @03:19PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok cutting straight to it:
The Martian Bachelor page on chivalry explains my thoughts better than I could, mainly this quote:
"Equality and chivalry do not mix. In today's world, chivalry gives women an edge that they have not earned and do not deserve. Nevertheless, some women continue to look backward and demand from men 18th-Century obeisance in a 20th-Century world."
Have you seen the reader responses yet? the best quote was from Jed Skillman:
"And now that I know you're a John Wayne/John Ford fan let me recommend you watch "They Were Expendable." See if you don't think it's analogous."
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, here's my thing: I'm pleased that women are once again acknowledging men's humanity, selflessness, and courage via the acts of heroism associated with Sept. 11. Believe me, it pleases me. And I do think the men who acted so heroically in the face of terrorism make up an ideal we should all look up to.
HOWEVER, I think we're leading ourselves back into a trap if we start supporting the statements of any woman who claims that a "real" man is defined by specific actions and personality.
I built my own house over a span of two years. I've always opened doors for people (whether female or male), I'm also a writer and an IT manager. During my house construction, some of the ladies in my office kept telling me how nice it was to have a "real" man around. I took it good naturedly, but it bothered me that we are allowing people not equipped to be men and completely understand manhood to define what manhood is.
Were those women in my office claiming that the other men in my office, who have no doubt accomplished their own goals in their own lives, were less masculine because they rented their homes, or apartments, or bought them instead of building them? Are those other men REALLY less manly because they open doors for themselves and think about themselves first?
I don't think so. Like women, men are a diverse group of people. Sorry, Ms. Noonan. I really appreciate the fact that you've been moved to understand that there's more to men than "The Man Show," but if you are convinced that there's only one type of man or personality who makes up a "real" man, then I think you still have a long way to go.
Anyone know where I can e-mail Ms. Noonan with the above opinion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting article. It's always nice to see those who don't do anything very useful for a living acknowledge the existence of those who do. Unfortunately it doesn't take long for Peggy Noonan to do what all post-feminist chicks seem compelled to do, namely reframe the issue so that women are the focus of attention. Her ideas of manliness appear to be quite self-serving, like her example of the guy who got killed defending his wife from a shark. Sure, 'old-fashioned' values are fine, so long as it's the same old same old of men risking harm, discomfort or inconvenience for the sake of women. Will this brave new world of 'respect' for manly men add so much as one cent to the money spent on men's healthcare, or help so much as one father maintain contact with his children after divorce, or provide acknowledgement, support and justice for so much as one male victim of domestic violence, or add so much as 1% to the number of males going into higher education, or save even one man from accident or death in the workplace, or even reduce by so much as one dollar the money some greetings card companies make from anti-male products? Like so many things in pop-fem culture, this largely self-serving appreciation of manliness seems like just another fad. The undoubted courage and hard work of many thousands of men in relation to the WTC and Pentagon attacks is something to be proud of, but these guys do stuff like this every day of their lives, only not in such dramatic circumstances. Have Peggy Noonan and company been blind for the last thirty years? Well, maybe they have.
If anyone should define 'manliness' it should be men themselves. We're the ones who have to bear the brunt of the consequences. Perhaps we should start thinking about what a 'real woman' should be, especially in relation to her attitudes towards and treatment of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In general, women, especially North American women, have little tolerance for males that demonstrate any character and/or self respect. Rather, they individually and collectively will oppress, denigrate, and discriminate against those males who do demonstrate the same. They seem to only tolerate males who are weak and base. This theoretical perspective has some backing in classical psychological theory. Most religions, through their dogmas, confirm the afforementioned theory. For example, in the Christian and Jewish biblical story of creation, Eve
prefers the base and weak Satan to man. The same results in the down fall of man. However, my hypothesis is based upon personal observation. If you will observe, you will come to the same conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Uberganger.
It's always nice to see those who don't do anything very useful for a living acknowledge the existence of those who do.
I agree with your assessment of Noonan's work. I do hope you're not saying, however, that journalists don't do anything useful for a living (speaking as a journalist). ;) I can recount a several moments when I was reporting on the police/courts beat that my life was in danger. Over a span of 10 years I've had at two guns pointed at me, alleged murderers threaten me, and all manner of telephone and stalking harassment over controversial stories I've written. Serious journalism can most definitely be a dangerous job. And if you do it right, it can be a noble one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I think that remark of mine was a good example of me shooting my mouth off! I agree with what you say as regards journalists - though, of course, there are journalists and there are journalists. If they were all serious there probably wouldn't be such a thing as manhating. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 15, @12:29PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The only question left is, then, if females are so inherently evil, why bother including them in your life? Why communicate with family members? Why date or marry? Why have daughters? You can always adopt sons, and soon you'll be able to clone yourself, using an egg cell from another mammal and incubating your clone in a laboratory. Actually the technology for the latter is already here. The only thing holding it back is a squeamish public.
There are no laws requiring you to communicate with family, date, marry or breed. If you choose to do these things all the while feeling that females are inherently evil, you're a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only question left is, then, if females are so inherently evil, why bother including them in your life? Why communicate with family members?
That's generally not a viable solution, and I sincerely doubt cshaw intended to claim that all women are evil by posting these observations (correct me if I'm wrong, cshaw). The reason your solution is not viable is because men and women share this world together, even if I did want to simply cut myself off from women, it would be impossible because women own businesses I need as a consumer. Women work jobs in which I, as a consumer, must deal with them face-to-face. Likewise, women work in the same office I do, and to get our jobs done, we must work together and communicate.
cshaw may have over-generalized femininity in his post, but his post does bring up the valid point that many men today feel ostracized if they speak up for themselves, and no one should be forced to feel that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, it's my chance to play the cynic twice tonight.
How convenient that women are regaining interest in "real men" who are willing to risk their lives and even die saving other people. Women and children first, of course. How convenient because after two decades of slamming men, denigrating anything masculine, and laughing at men's attempts to come to terms with a new world of "equality", woman starts celebrating the "man's man" just when she needs him to put himself in harm's way to save her.
It's akin to spending an hour at a party laughing and poking fun of the big dumb guy standing awkwardly in the corner, but then hiding behind him when a crazed, knife-wielding drunk comes staggering into the ballroom. The big dumb guy is a dork, but in a dangerous situation he's a useful dork.
Mark my words: the "man's man" will remain in fashion only so long as the panic lasts, after which he'll be cast aside and derided again, as he was before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I have this pessimistic belief that what Buster suggests will turn out to be the case, but I know that it will only happen if men allow it. Each and every one of us needs to stand up to the feminist contempt for our testosterone every time it confronts us. When the women talk about how brave THEY were during the crisis, we need to remind them that, of 11,000 firefighters in NYC, 45 of them are women, even after the standards were lowered drastically. And when they talk about how brave Barbara Olson was, we need to remind them that, as courageous as her telephone call was, who did she call to find out what to tell the pilot to do? Her husband. All this while a handful of men, MEN, on Flight 93 took action.
We need to remind them every time they say "women are just as capable as men" by replying "Yes, dear, but for some reason they stay away from the risky jobs." We need to do this on an individual basis, face to face, every time it comes up. Firmly and without equivocating.
And as far as Peggy Noonan is concerned, she's written three consecutive articles with this theme, and I think she deserves a word or two of encouragement.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
