|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:41 PM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
These are the types of guys I am usualy referring to when I use the term "Wussie poopies".
These guys are ideal for many of todays women and feminists (that are heterosexual). They are efeminate, docile, submissive and easy to control. And THAT'S what it's all about, in the end, isn't it? Control.
I detest these kinds of men. They make even the biggest flameing gay guy look like Clint Eastwood.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't really have a problem with this other than the way it's being framed. Kindness and communication skills are healthy and beneficial to alot of people no matter what their gender. Having them doesn't "feminize" a man. It gives him options that the disposability role hindered in him. Anything that increases men's options is libarating for men, not "feminizing." Such a man can be just as "masculine" as anyone else, and there's no need for society to call him things like "metrosexual."
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And that behavior, says Halpern, means being a metrosexual, which includes ''fabulous communication skills, how they dress, their haircut and posture; if they are kinder and gentler, are consensus builders and have good emotional intelligence - traits traditionally associated with women. The kind of drive to get the result no matter what it takes no longer is acceptable if it translates into abusive behavior."
Well, first off, since when has good personal hygine been a solely female trait? A man might not have worried excessivly over dress, and read every single fashion magazine but never has it been a 'male' trait to not dress for approprately for work.
Good communication skills, once again since when has this been a female only trait? Getting your point accross has always been valuable in buisness. Men have always had good communication skill on the whole, and she is merely trying to make it seem that somehow a 'feminized' man is new, or even feminine at all.
And the whole kinder and gentler thing I don't understand, isn't a gentlemen a man? Isn't it a traditional manly trait? Men often are nice and pleasent, atleast as much so as women. Perhaps men are occasionally less nice to your face, when they have a problem, but I would call this being forthrite, where often women tend to do this, but instead to gossiping and talking behind their backs.
I am not totally sure what she implies with consensus builders. I can see men trying to get others on their side and building alliance, but I can also see men blazing their own trail if they just can't convince people. Each one has its advantages and disadvatages. One could also describe it as lack of boldness, only after everyone thinks it is a good idea, does progress get made. Even this is never a foolproof way of preventing stupid ideas.
Equally, I have experience equal numbers of people that lack 'emotional intelligence', or simply put a knowledge of people and their reactions.
This reminds me of the many times where people try to suggest that group activites are more feminine. It seems to me construction teams, sports teams, military units, and any other number similar activies are group activites at their best, where each individual works for the benefit of the team. Instead of group activites where it is merely a collection of invidiuals each trying to get them best for themselves, despite if it is best for the group as a whole.
It just seems to me this women wants to try and make it seem as if positive traits that men have always had are somehow new, or feminine. Perhaps, dress, manners, posture, friendlness have always things that have helped. No one wants to work with a complete asshole, but sometimes you need someone to be authoritative so everyone knows exactly what must be done when. Perhaps she should focus on real traits attributed to men, such as aggresive or assertive. Which does not mean abusive as she suggests. One can go after the ball with all their energy and be aggressive, but not be needlessly harmful to others, which would be abusive. Focused aggression is what men are known for, drive and determination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:54 PM August 3rd, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I like this sentence, ''The impact of women in the workplace has had an enormous effect on how men are expected to behave as leaders,''
As if we have been thuggish brutes for eons, but finally the women have arrived (look out fellas) and tamed our brutish ways!
apetr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have all the citations, but I have read time and time again how women themselves say they'd rather have a male boss than a female one.
Every female CEO I've ever encountered has turned her organization into a full-time narcissistic therapy-playpen focused on her psychotic needs rather than production, performance, and profitability.
Women don't want to work for women!
Like men, they just don't need the brain damage...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cool comments Roy.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the comments on this page: Just because a man can be intuitive, clean, or open to others doesn't mean he's feminine! Geez! This is just overanalyzing!
I'm not threatened by the least of this article either; women encounter the exact opposite all the time--they feel they have to be more masculine to gain power in the workplace too.
This is a frivolous article written over nothing. Every person has the capacity to be both masculine and feminine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:55 AM August 4th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it is a frivolous article, the problem I have, they are always written from the point of view that the women or females are better because of something or other. It is written to show that men who act like women are better off, more successful and I disagree.
apetr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:06 PM August 4th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I suggested this one time before, But, doesn't it seem like alot of women and MOST feminists believe that true "equality" will only be achieved when men and women literealy switch genders? I.E. Women behaveing completely as men and men as women.
That's what it seems like.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:30 AM August 5th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it sometimes seem they are trying to turn men into women and boys into girls and if we only got in touch with our feminine side.
apetr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:32 PM August 5th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I say we men get "in touch with our feminine side" when feminists get in touch with their feminine side.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I learned in my college psychology class that people who can balance out both masculine and feminine traits are generally more successful. That means BOTH GENDERS have to be dual in that sense. I think its seen more negatively when men are feminine because hey, femininity is associated with weakness, whereas masculinity is seen as powerful. Not that masculine women don't get a bad rep either. It's ironic, huh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many sexist dogmas of feminism can you spot in this one article?
(1) The gendering of personality traits - 'male' aggression, 'female' communicativeness. A hundred years ago people used to talk about white civilisation and black aggression. It's just hate speech, nothing more. It has no basis in fact. I've met some pretty aggressive females in my time, and some very communicative men. Note: The claim that 'men are like this' and 'women are like that' is what 'sexism' is. Feminists are not against sexism. Sexism is perfectly OK as long as it benefits women.
(2) The superiority of women over men. Having established that some traits are male and some female, we are then told that the female ones are inherently ‘better’.
(3) Diagnosis of society’s problems – they are all caused by men, or at least by ‘masculine’ traits. There is no enquiry into where ‘masculinity’ might have come from, or why.
(4) Proposed solution – men must become more like women. It’s the arrogance of this that gets me most. “Look at me. Am I not a paragon of moral virtue? Why don’t you take me as your role model? If everyone was more like me, the world would be a better place.” These girls have a *very* high opinion of themselves. No doubt this is one of the attractions of feminism - you get to think of yourself as above moral reproach.
(5) Women are better workers than men. If you become more like a woman, you will be better at your job. Again, the level of these feminists’ smugness and conceit is quite remarkable. Why don't we hear much about 'the female ego'?
(6) Therefore the best men are the ones that are most like women, i.e. the gay and/or effeminate ones. Take a look at the kind of men these women choose for themselves and you often find that they don’t practice what they preach. They may want to have an effeminate male friend to chat to about home furnishings, but they don’t want to have sex with him. When they choose a lover, they still usually go for aggressive, competitive leader types. That’s evolution for you.
My advice about becoming a metrosexual new man is - go ahead if you want to, but don’t expect any thanks for it. Don’t think that you will somehow win the approval of feminists by reforming your behaviour. Whatever you do will never be enough. You are a heterosexual man, and that means you are a monster.
As for this crap about the workplace, it is exactly that - crap. The most unreasonable, bullying, hectoring boss I’ve ever had was a woman. Most of the bullies I’ve met at work have been women. It seems that ‘masculinity’ isn’t so bad as long as women are doing it.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:10 PM August 4th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
AngryMan.
BINGO!!
Exellent points.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:13 PM August 4th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
The rest of the story:
Companies that are like this end up bankrupt.
As a consultant to business, and having an MBA, when you lose site of aggressive innovation, optimization of company resources, and the simple philosopy of the goal of a company is to make a profit by increasing throughput, reducing operational expenses while simutaneously lowering inventory, you end up bankrupt.
Thankfully, I have always been paid before my clients went bankrupt by not heading my above advice. Nope, the executives at my clients' companies were totally metrosexualized, and focused on empowerment meetings, gossiping, group thinking, cat fights, etc, (basically acting like women) and what do you get in the end? BANKRUPTCY OF THEIR COMPANIES. Yep, act like women and toss aside your masculine systematic thinking process in favor of an feminine empathetic thinking process which women have, and you can be sure to be out of a job by bankrupting your company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just the new way of describing toadies, yes-men and liars. It used to be called 'the gift of gab' now it's 'metrosexual'.
It's just a bunch of new terms for males who are no threat to the alpha-male.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
