SC, I think you are reading things that are not there because perhaps you believe that men are a "better gender?" Most people do not even think in those terms, but it is very clear to me that you do. Like I said in my previous post, I think this is the cause of much of the bitterness coming from the feminazi movement, they believe they are inferior and feel they have to COMPETE to have worth.

But lets say that you are right and the whole of mankind believes that men are the "better gender." So what? Why would that be your problem? Does the world define you or do you, as an adult woman, define you? If my neighbor believes he is better than me, that is not my problem, is it?

I don't think there is a better gender.
There are gender differences.
Both genders ROCK!

Agree with you but I do see what S_C is saying.

Each gender is great for different reasons, what we lack our opposite gender makes up for and vice versa.

Makes life unique.

Bottom line is that we both need the other gender to survive.

Which is ???? Please 'splain to me.

If I allow others to DEFINE ME, then I only have MYSELF to blame if I don't like the outcome.

Just,

I think one of the most damaging events that I have witnessed in my lifetime is the loss of traditional gender roles. And I'm not talking about some subservient relationship. I'm speaking to men celebrated for being men, and women valued for being woman.

My Grandmother never tried to be my Grandfather. They both knew what they were about and they were firmly content with that knowledge. Grandma wore dresses and cooked fabulous things. Grandpa ran the farm and fixed everything that broke. This was a practical division of labor. It seemed to work for them.

I like Fred Reed. He reminds me of a time when men weren't ashamed to be men. I think that we need to quit pretending that men and women are the same. We're not. We don't think the same way, we hold different things dear. I like it that way.

I too fear for my son in education. He hasn't yet been in a class with a male teacher. There are only two in his school. The principal is female as well as the entire administrative support staff. Boys are indeed expected to behave like little girls or they are drugged or punished. Boys are indeed harmed by this.

I guess it is time for us men to man up.


Edited to add one more of Fred's articles.

This one is about schools vs. boys. He says it much better than I ever could.


Teacheresses Against Boy Children

Take Away Reason And Accountability...




I've been consulting with the National Football League. I want to learn how to dropkick a radical feminist. It's harder than it looks. They aren't real aerodynamic, so it's a bear to get a good spiral. Hang time is better with the scrawny ones, but you don't get much velocity.

I'm prepared to practice.

What put a bur in my sock was some hair-ball teacher lady in California who I found on the Web. She was doing her level best, which was probably pretty good, to make being a schoolboy into a social defect and a treatable condition. This is the default position in schools today. One hears constantly that boys don't do well in school. They don't sit still. They aren't worth a damn. Maleness is a condition to be cured, and probably a Personality Disorder.

A while back I encountered a teacher wearing a button, "So many men, so little intelligence." (Clever, Sweet Potato. Maybe you'll be the first female chess grandmaster since Newton's wife invented calculus.) Want her teaching your son?

This hostility to boys comes out of feminism, which is the belief that if you can't do squat yourself, keep anybody else from succeeding, and that way you'll look good by comparison.

I'm serious as infected melanoma about the default hostility. The teacheresses do not like boys. Here's a typical example from the schools of Fairfax Country, right outside of the Yankee Capital:

"Various studies indicate that boys are less likely than girls to go to college and have lower educational aspirations. Boys receive lower grades, are more likely than girls to be disengaged from school, and are more likely to view school as a hostile environment. . . Boys are more likely to be suspended or expelled. Boys are more likely to be held back or to drop out of school. Boys are much more likely than girls to be placed on drugs like Ritalin. Boys are more likely to be disciplined by teachers and administrators."

All true. As it happens, the academic sisterhood does forget to tell you a few things about the stupidity of boys. Let me give Sweet Potato something to ponder while she chews her cud.

In 1999, the male average on the math SATs was 531. The female was 495. That's not a trivial difference, sisterhood.

Verbal scores? Males 509, females 502. The boys are ahead in both, despite fidgeting, skipping school, and fighting.

A case, at least partly legitimate, can be made that, because more girls than boys take the tests, (563,000 boys and 657,000 girls) more dumb girls take it and bring down the female average.

OK. Let's look at the numbers of kids in 1999 making 800s, the highest possible score.

In math: Boys, 4815. Girls, 1611.

Now, Sweet Potato, is one of those numbers larger than the other? Think carefully. Take your time. Stomp once for yes. . . .

Ah, but girls, we all think we know, are better verbally, so it shouldn't surprise one to find far more girls than boys making Verbal 800s.

Boys with 800 Verbals: 3087. Girls: 2828. And more girls take the test.

So many men, so little. . .

Do you suspect that the SATs are crooked? Biased against girls? Well, let's look at the Graduate Record Exams. Here is a list of intended subjects in grad school in which men have a higher combined math and verbal score than women: Business, Education, Engineering, Humanities and Arts, Life Science, Physical Science, Social Science, Other Fields.

Here is a list of intended subjects in which women have the higher combined scores:

Uh. . . heh. . .ahhh. . .

Urg.

Not one field.

Putting it simply enough for the purplest-haired Lesbian, in the higher ranges of intelligence, boys blow girls out of the water. It isn't even close. And everyone who works in the field knows it.

Now, the polite thing would be not to mention these awkwardnesses. Why offend women?

If this increasingly sorry country decided things honestly, on individual merit, and didn't give in to ratbag feminists who want to stick their knives in anything male, including children, I'd keep my mouth diplomatically shut. But the ratbags are there. And they're doing all they can to turn boys into sexless, drugged-up, academically crippled zombies.

Why the dislike of boys? Simple. Feminism isn't about fairness. Sure, once it was, when the questions were equal pay and opportunity and so on. Today, feminism is about (1) revenge and (2) power. Men, always fools where women are involved, make the mistake of thinking that reason and good will must be in there somewhere. They aren't. Feminists want to win. Period.

Do they really think women can hack it in ground combat? Of course they don't. They're zealots, not fools. They resent hell out of what was a masculine culture that didn't want women around, and in fact regarded them as militarily useless. They hate the military, hate its attitudes, and delight in shoving women down the throats of the generals.

The pattern never fails. When they want to persecute "deadbeat dads," and humiliate them, and bankrupt them, do you think they're really concerned about "the best interest of the children"? Be serious. Ever hear a feminist criticize unmarried brood mares who drop kids by the dozen and can't raise them?

No. They glorify illegitimacy, which is death to kids, especially in the ghetto, and advocate every measure to promote it -- because illegitimacy reduces the role of men. They don't care about kids. The vast majority belong in Holland, holding back water, and figure the only good father is a turkey baster. They hate men. With whom, in a fair fight, they can't compete. And they know it. Which is why they hate them.

Why do heterosexual teachers buy into hurting boys? Intellectually, teachers fall between education theorists and bright cocker spaniels. (Probably closer to the education theorists. The AKC has been doing wonders with spaniels.) If you think I'm kidding look at the GREs for education majors, whose scores are the lowest of all fields, and remember that these are the smart ones.

Not being terribly bright, they are susceptible to progressive thought, which they understand no better than do progressives. They are not well educated, have little notion what education really is, but dimly resent it. The rambunctiousness of boys is merely a nuisance to them, not a part of the human condition -- and do you have any idea of the withering scorn a boy kid of fifteen, with an IQ of 160, directs toward a teacher with an IQ of 95? A bright girl will disguise her scorn. A boy's stands out like a weasel in a punch bowl.

Resentment and revenge. Bye. I've got dropkicking practice.

Obviously a majority of women want men to be MEN (some of them might believe this in secret.) Why else would romance novels be one of the top genres out there?

Men and women were created to compliment each other and fit together. God created each gender with opposing strenghts and flaws, but when they come together, they are a perfect fit.

Well Mel you gone and made me post again darn it .

I do not feel inferior at all. I happen to like the old way i wish it could still be where the women stays home and the men work. But i still read that into this post.

And MF my H does know my thoughts as he and i have discussions about this same subject and he himself will say that women are the "weaker" sex in a lot of things (not that he is a chauvanist).

And in my kids school boys by far out weigh the girls in the top ten of their class and the jocks get away with poor grades just to play sports and our school is about about 50/50 split with male and female teachers. All of our principles are males and so is our Superintendant and there is only one female on our school board.

I agree with your comment. I don't agree that all/most men see themselves as "better" but some do and the reverse goes for women. In my first few posts I offered a woman's perspective. I wasn't trying to argue, be defensive, or stray from the topic. I was trying to provide some insight as to what men might be missing when their wife says something to them. It seemed that if I didn't just agree that I was wrong or bitter. I believe that is what S_C felt too. I even made comment on a particular behavior and it was glossed over. Why? Because the topic was changing (although I don't know how people can have a discussion without challenging anything or adding to it...otherwise we'd all be high 5ing each other and nothing else) or because that darn mirror was sitting there?

Why do you think you have a need to continually make comparisons? Have you noticed that?

Ding ding ding you have just won the fabulous prize behind door number 1 LOL 1

Well, he's right in "a lot of things" but it's just as true that men are the weaker sex in "a lot of things".

So what??? That is my whole point...men are good at and MADE for "certain things" and so are women!

The problem (IMHO) is when women begin demanding that they are JUST AS GOOD AT or JUST AS CAPABLE as men in ALL things. And then demand to be treated as such!

This is nonsense, and to tell you the truth, I believe it's this attitude that has made male chauvinsim WORSE because you know what??? Women end up looking VERY BAD and VERY DUMB when they attempt to "prove this" because it's IMPOSSIBLE. Men are "built" for certain things and women are "built" for certain things. Trying to change human nature is an impossible feat and no wonder men LAUGH at women like this.

To try to make one gender "better" than the other is like comparing apples to oranges. Do we compare baseball players to football players??? No, because they are in different CATEGORIES, just as men and women are.

It better not be a year's supply of Rice-A-Roni!

""This is complete nonsense, it is only "difficult" to live without two incomes if you CHOOSE for it to be...there is a HUGE difference between "wants" and "needs".""

It's easy to say when the main bread winner makes 100G. There are many homes where both don't bring in 50G together.

There's only so much fat to cut off the bone. Before you know it there's not even much bone left.

Well Chrisner,

Did you have the experiences I did? I had never had a player beg me NOT to start her, until I coached girls teams. It just blew my mind. I spent hours talking with that girl, convincing her she was the best guard on the team and one of the best in the league and to calm her down. I it got to the point I would tell her parents to either feed her more caffiene or cut her off of the stuff, she was so hyper and afriad.

By contrast none of the boys teams I ever coached or played on ever had the problem of a kid NOT wanting to start. We may be nervous but we are...COOL.

I coached basketball, all of my kids played basketball and one of the played fours years of college ball. What is interesting is that while they all played multiple sports (one played four in HS and one in college), (One played 3 in HS and one in college), (another played 3 in HS), the dynamical differences were still there. Girls interact differently.

And yes, as someone said girls can be vicious. At least that was my experience. Chrisner what is your experience in these things?

JL

The Road, I think most don't even try. Its funny how folks who really try seem to make this happen. But most folks don't want to give up all the luxuries. And I know so many women who place a higher value on their career than on raising their families. I have had women actually tell me that a DAYCARE can raise her own child better than she can! Sure, it is not easy, but lots of folks make it work. My hat is off to those who do make it work.

Here, the average income is less than 50G, and many living expenses are usually MORE than what you see in a developed country because almost everything is imported.

We, and many other families, can actually survive on one income, and have actually done so for awhile. It can be done, even if it means downsizing on the living arrangements. Key is to figure out where most of the money is REALLY going and address accordingly.

Folks,

I had a thought for you to consider. I will use myself as an example to set up this question. I grew up in a very male dominated segment of the population. My father was a career military officer. He and all of his friends (those that lived) fought in and were part of three wars.

I grew up in a era where men made the money, women made the bread, and there really wasn't two income families, unless you considered selling baked goods or eggs or something like that.

I was/am a large man, I played sports and two sports in college.

YET...I make my living looking at a computer screen or reading journals and text books and writing. It takes no strength at all to type on this computer, work out the equations I deal with and have dealt with all of my life. I am a scientist.

One a day to day basis, it doesn't matter if I can bench 3 pounds or 300 pounds, it doesn't make any difference if I am quick, nibble, or have great endurance.

My point. In our society, but not in all of the world, most men do not make a living by the "sweat of their brow". They used to, men used to actually work on cars because most every guy knew the basics of cars. Today's car's cannot be worked on unless you have the right tools, and 5-10 thousand dollars in equipment. If I had a heart attack tomorrow assuming no brain damage I can go right back to work. In the older days when most made their living off of the land, or even in a factory I might not have been able to do that.

What I am hoping to illustrate is that traditional male jobs and roles that required strength, endurance, size, etc. are vanishing. And the jobs today do not require such "talents". And yet, deep down some of what I perceive as a more "male" attributes: aggressiveness, ability to handle failure and keep focused on the goal are things that still are needed.

I think one of the huge problems is that the need for what are the more obvious differentials between males and females are vanishing. So the role of the male as differentiated from the female is not as well defined. Yet, the differences in how we perceive the world and react to it are still there.

It seems to me that is the issue. What is expected and what is needed from the males in our society. It seems to me being like women is not it. But, having said that, what is it. People here have said that "leadership" is needed from the male in the family. I wholehardly agree. But, having spent a good portion of my life learning about leadership and leading both professionally and in my family, I think it is far harder to do than to say.

Let me offer you some thoughts. Clearly in the day when physical strength was sort of the final arbiter of issues, and when physcial strength was needed to support/protect a family the male role was more obvious. Today, I think male leadership needs to make use of other traits often associated with males. Decision making with emotions reduced or removed from the process means often better decisions and better leadership. An ability to see the consequences of actions or what is important makes a good leader. I could go on.

My point, is society really looking for this, are we teaching your young men to maximize their innate instincts to be better people? Are we spending as much time teaching boys how to be men as we are teaching women how to be more like men, at least in the traditional sense?

The discussion of "feminization" of men needs to take place within the context of our expectations and the reality.

I will offer a final indictment of our public school system. There was a time (before women's lib) when the smartest half of our society were teachers...women. They had little opportunity to do much else if they were academically inclined. So society reaped the benefit of halfing the very brightest of one half of our society be teachers.

Today, that is not true. Worse in my opinion many of the teachers especially female were profoundly influenced by the women's movement of the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and yes even this century. They believed and do believe that men and women are the same. This is reflected in child rearing, teaching, and the expectations of the teachers. The result...boys are dropping out of school in record rates, the number of college students is heavily weighted toward women and growing more so every day. Yet inspite of this obvious data, there are programs to encourage women, mentor women, help women with their self-esteem, but very very few programs to encourage boys.

Now you may or may not believe what I have said, but If anyone has a male child, or is planning on marrying a male, or simply existing in this society, the results of what is happening is going to be very bad. If you want an example of what can happen look at the African American population where a majority of children are born out of wedlock, there is little male presence in children's lives and the result...high incarceration rates, low education levels, low income levels, and African American women wondering where all of the good men have gone.

Folks, this is not a race issue, it is an issue of losing half of the society and it does affect marriages, it affects society (crime, lower productivity, huge issues with child welfare, etc.)

I realize this has been an interesting thread, and I have really enjoyed the discussions and points of view expressed, but Ouch's initial thoughts suggest a bigger examination than just "feminization" of males, it is losing them from the productive part of society, due to our own policies, our blindness to data, Political correctness, and failure to seek a true balance in things. It means they won't be good good husbands.

I have so much to say but I have avoided work long enough. Please keep talking, but I would really like to know what people think a good man is, and what traits of men should be encouraged, we already know what one have been discouraged.

JL

Here we go OT again, but just had to add...

And you can always move to a place with a lower cost of living.