I think it is obvious, that in today's society, we have been taught that the goal of men is to better understand women. I think that this is a completely erroneous argument. I believe that this has set up a very flawed self image in men. Men should first seek to know themselves and what it means to be a man. I believe that this would better serve both sexes. Men have been taught in both the media (sit coms, news). That women are the smart ones. Just look at the example that men are given to model themselves after. Tim Allen, Homer Simpson, Jim Belushi. The list is endless. Men are portrayed as low brow idiots who can't do anything right without their wives. This is wrong and horribly demeaning to men and by proxy their wives.

You can read countless stories on here of men who are afraid to act like men. Who live in fear of their wives. As the bible says. Men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave up his life for it. But women are to also recognize their husbands as the leader of their families. Many men have been told all their lives that they are just stupid, oversexed neanderthals. And the sad thing is, they are often more then satisfied to take on that role.

This is not an anti woman thread. It is a pro woman thread. Women have also been warped into thinking that they are to lead their families. To have it all, career, kids, and of course the submissive husband. Sorry, but the state of our marriages are in such poor shape that this must be addressed.

After this feminization of men, we are left with milque toast card board cut outs of men. No wonder why after being discovered in affairs women often look haughtily at there husbands and say, this is your fault. And the men are only to happy to believe it. Compounding there adulterous wife's sin by allowing them to use them as whipping boys. This has created an incredible lack of respect and consequently a love destroying environment that decreases the chance of reconciliation exponentially. A WOMAN WILL NOT LOVE A MAN SHE CANNOT RESPECT. THAT IS A FACT.

I have started this thread to address the weakness in men who jeopardize their marriages by not commanding the respect and self respect they deserve and their wives, so desperately need for their confidence and security.

One of the best books on this subject:

Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul
by John Eldredge

.... in my opinion

PS - " not commanding the respect "

means not providing the leadership

I agree pepperband, I have found after men being trashed for the last 50 years, it has left society with a model of a man that is immature, violent, selfish and lacking self control.

Some how, who ever came up with the idea that if tare down men you lift up women. This is also a ridiculous premise. When you tare down men you are left with men who victimize women. Men respond to someone they can look up to, Someone they can model themselves after. When you tare a man down. You get exactly what you speak against. When you can point to an example and say to a boy, that is what it means to be a man. He has something to reach for.

Also men must be willing to take his position as a leader. A woman will gladly give the lead to a man who has his head screwed on straight and is looking out for the welfare of the family. She only takes the lead when the man refuses to. And some men are just too lazy not to stop her. They figure if she wants to do it..I'll let her. WRONG. That is the moment she starts losing respect. If she is better at figuring the bills than the man, then yes..let her, but be involved and learn to do it yourself. A woman wants security and she wants it from her man..she doesn't want to have to provide it for herself if she has a man.
Pepperband is correct

Not commanding respect is not providing leadership.
A woman that is being led well respects her man immensely.

link to previous discussion of this topic

A discussion for which I took a lot of heat, I might add !

Brad Stein, Very funny, clean, christian comedian.

I guess i am either naive or living under a rock or something because i do not believe this is the case. I still believe that men are the leaders of the home. At least that is the case with most of the people i know IRL. Women may be a little better at "running the household", but the man is still the one who is "in charge of the household" IMHO.

Why would you even marry a woman who "pushed you around"?

I agree with you in part, but there are so many dynamics at work than just men being like Homer Simpson. Both sexes are at fault for the breakdown of the nuclear family. More men nowadays want their wives to look like a supermodel and expect the wife to even engage in threesomes, watching some girl on girl action, or whatever other fantasy thoughts come to mind. Gee that's going to make your wife feel special and loved.

The problem with women is that they buy into the notion that M is 50/50 when it's not. Yes there are two people but there's no way to divide responsibilities equally. If a woman is a SAHM she should not expect her H to cook and clean 50% of the time. That's impractical and silly but some go to extreme that equal is equal not matter what. However, the H should recognize and appreciate what his wife does for the good of the family even if she doesn't bring home a paycheck. Unfortunately I see the majority of men taking their wife for granted in this area. Isn't it said that WW feel emotionally divorced from their H's by the time an A is underway?

Women get resentful, men gets resentful and the M suffers. There needs to be a balance.

Great topic and right on!

My DH has become the man I've always dreamed of. He LEADS our family and has even been called the patriarch by people outside of our family. This has not always been the case! There was a time in our marriage where I was the one who wore the pants, so to speak, and I resented it. No more, and I LOVE IT. I love handing things over to him, he takes the load, the worry from me and deals with it.

He read "Wild at Heart" and it changed his outlook a lot. Great book.

By the way, my DH has changed so much and is so much stronger. Now when he meets someone, he says, "Hi, my name's David and I am politically incorrect."

Your belief is right..however there are women who will constantly challlenge a man's authority. I have seen it and lived it. The man should be the leader of course, but I have seen where he has just laid back and let the woman do it. I am not saying he is not the leader....sometimes he just doesn't assume it as he should.
You want to see an example...look at some of the BS men who refuse to stand up to a wife who has cheated on him..he cowers to her demands...afraid that he may lose her. This is where he needs to be a leader

I agree with this 150% and it is everywhere you look it is RIDICULOUS!


I also feel that the majority of men take their wives for granted when it comes to as i put it earlier "taking care of the household" whether they are SAHM or not. I work a full time job same as my H and i feel things should be 50/50 with EVERYTHING.

My H actually got upset one night because there was a thing on the news about how many dads knew things about their kids and he could not answer any of the questions. The question were things like "What is your child allergic to?, When was their last doctor visit?, What time do they need to be at their various activities?"

BW do EXACTLY the same thing as they are afraid they may lose their WH. And they have to be the leader most of the time in recovery same as BHs. It is not gender specific, infedelity hurts PERIOD!!!!

Of course infidelity hurts, and I never said anything was gender specific..just pointing out how men should take a leadership role and not cower to unreasonable demands..this thread is about men..I know women do the same too, but we are not discussing that aspect

Yes i know it is about men and i am a little touchy on this subject.

IMHO "women" get bashed far too often here on MB.

I work from home and my H works longer hours and deals with the commute so I do take on more of the household duties simply because it's impractical in our situation. Doesn't mean I expect him to never, ever help me but I also want it to get done too. If I left it up to him....tick tock tick tock...some time in this lifetime would be nice LOL. We all can get lazy and get overwhelmed. I know H works hard for our family but men also need to realize there's more to being a provider than just a paycheck and women need to stop yelling at them for not making enough money.

understood..didn't mean to cause a trigger..if i did I apologize

If you find those things that are most important to you, you POJA them with your wife - e.g. playing basketball with the boys every Saturday morning - and then you are left feeling no resentment about what SHE wants to get out of the marriage (i.e., how she'd like you to spend time with her).

Is this a one sided discussion then?

Totally understand about the helping you have to do whatever works for your situation. Like i am the one that usually cooks because i get home first and get things started but then he cleans up afterwards. It is all about working together.

And me personally i have never said anything to my H about the amount of money he makes. We both make about the same anyway and it is all OURS so what does it matter who is bringing it in as long as it is there to take care of the expenses.

You know that it's not..the topic is about men, but I'm sure that the women have plenty to interject

Mr. OUCH

Be prepared - wear your asbestos suit Mr Ouch.
You will feel the heat and take plenty of :twobyfour:hits because your PURPOSE for starting this thread will be misunderstood.

No apology necessary. It is not a trigger it is something that bothers me about MB.

IMHO MB seems to have a "boys will be boys" attitude when it comes to WHs and men in general and WWs and women in general are "looked down upon". At least that is my take on it.

I guess i will just stay off of your "men" thread.

Understood. I wasn't trying to turn the thread into argue that men are wrong to think what they think. I was only trying to show the female perspective of why it's not so cut and dry.

Wow.. this is a touchy subject for you..it is evident that you still harbor much hurt over this.

When is anything cut and dry? There are always variables..always.

No hurt at all just an observation regarding my thoughts on MB men versus women.

I'm a FWW, and I do not feel this way at all...I'm sure there are some posters that do "look down" on WWs/women, but (1) I'm no longer a WW (2)I REALLY like being a woman, regardless of what others may think, and (3) I don't look down on me, and neither does Mr. W...Those opinions are the two that matter the most anyway...

I totally agree with you OuchThatHurts and Shaken...I LOVE that Mr. W is the leader of our household...I couldn't ask for a better, more Godly man...Following him is a true pleasure...

Mrs. W

As i said before this is IMHO as "i" have observed in posts on this forum.

If men want to be treated like men, then maybe they should start acting like MEN instead of frightened little girls. I can't count the times we see men on here who live in TERROR of their wive's anger and then complain that they get no respect. They teach their own sons to grow up and be little pansies who tolerate disrespect.

The thing that makes me the angriest is when these pansymen ABANDON their homes and children because some tyrannical woman told them she "needs space." I guess we should be grateful that she didn't tell him to jump off the cliff, but it is bad enough when a MAN abandons his own family in their time of GREATEST NEED.

I will give them credit, though, usually when we start pointing this out to BH's, they buck up and take action. At first they are a little shocked, but they listen and usually try and turn it around.

I have been here for years and have never seen any such thing.

Well maybe you have not, but "my" observation is different and that is okay.

In fact, if I were going to speculate, I would say that BETRAYED SPOUSES recieve many more 2x4s than anyone else - BY FAR. It always amazes me when people never mention them and focus on WWs.

Agreed. The finances thing WOW. My H refused to even try. It IS disappointing to feel I must bear all the pressure.

Can you cite an example Still_Crazy? I've seen you make that statement a couple of times and I always wonder what you mean...

Mrs. W

Awesome post, shaken, I agree 100%. Men can blame women only so far. But the buck stops with the man in the mirror when he becomes an ADULT. He can't blame anyone but himself after that.

I can not give you exact examples, it is just my take on threads such as this one and the one Pep just bumped about "why they love men" and the "are wayward women worse than wayward men" thread and the "run of the mill WW" are just a few i can think of right away.

If you do not understand the purpose of a thread I started , please ask me.

I am very happy to discuss such things with you on the original thread.

Let's not threadjack.

I agree with this. As a young woman the thing I cannot stand is a man who tries to win me over by bowing down to me.

I do not want a man who will do everything I say, I want one who can, in a way, challenge me and take charge, if that makes sense.

I always thought of myself as a feminist but I've come to agree--if a man cannot fight for me and BE A MAN in the sense of caring and providing (not necessarily for money, but being there too), then I do not respect him and therefore would have no interest in him.

Totally agree.

And BTW ...

I like it when Hubby opens the car door, any door for that matter for me, and I like it when he insists on walking on the outside of the sidewalk.

I feel protected and respected by him ... as a wife/woman should feel.

That is the whole premise. Women do challenge men to see how far they can go. Some challenge a lot..some little, some moderate, but still challenge. Women want boundaries within reason. They want to know what their man will and will not put up with. Men think that if we give you what you want that will make you happy..that's not always the case.

Not exactly.
We women want to know our man thinks we are worth fighting for - and that might include stopping us from destructive behaviors. The boundaries are out of love and protection, not simply out of authority.

agreed, but you don't want the man to be a pushover either

I was simply answering a question asked by Mrs W.

I do not wish to discuss it on you original thread because i feel the same way about that thread that i do this one which is "women bashing" and it bothers me.

NOT my man !!!!!!!

Yup.

I have boundaries for myself.

If H had boundaries for me, I would see this as controlling.

Boundary..If we have a joint account..let me know when you are taking money out so I can be in sync
Controlling..you cannot take out any money unless I say so

There is a difference.

Right! That's perfectly alright. I mean you want to know if your hubby wants to buy a $250 golf club (I've been hitting Foxtrot books a bit hard lately) so that you know to put that in the checkbook or wherever.

So that later you will know not to try and pay the mortgage from that account, etc.

Ok, I just have to say a few things about this topic.

One I agree with the initial primis. But, I would like to take it a bit further than anyone has so far.

I have two sons, both in their 20's. My youngest 22 came home from school one day. He was in the 6th grade, perhaps 5th grade and he was sort of down. My W asked him what the problem was. His response to her blew her away and me as well. He announced that he wished he was a woman. My wife asked him why is that? He said that his teacher had been talking about how bad the world was and how it was all men's fault. How men were not good husbands, not good at business, and certainly not good at running things. Apparently, she asked the class its thoughts and all of the girls seemed to chime in with their take on the world.

Now what a girl in the 6th or 5th grade knows about the world is hard for me to imagine, but apparently they had been bombarded with the usual talk about men that they felt free to sp0ut it. So here sits a boy, thinking the he is doomed to be thought of as the cause of the world's ills and that he has no hope of being a good person because he is a guy. I know it was illogical. He and I had a long father son chat about it.

But, you couple this sort of the thing with the constant admonition that boys behave like the girls do in school, with the removeal or PE and recess which is where boys burn off energy, with the constant bombardment via TV that boys are buffoons at best, and the very clear message that "fighting" is not allowed. And you have boys that are NOT boys, you just have poor imitations of girls.

I will go further, my older son was attacked in the 7th grade by about 6 boys, he fought back. He got suspended for just as long as they did. The message... you don't fight, even when attacked. I told him to hunt them down one at a time when they were alone and have a "word" with them explaining what he would do to them individually the next time any of them messed with him. That seemed have done the trick. He did eventually have to take on several of them however.

Mel says men should fight. I agree but all social training is now geared for men to not fight. Plus the word on the street if anything goes to court, the guy will lose. Further, men are trained and by nature geared to sacrifice for the family so if a W asks a man to leave his inclination is to do so. I agree it is wrong and I along with many people here especially Mel have strongly encouraged them to stay but society's expectations are in fact different.

I will not say men are "feminized", but I will say they are very "confused". Many women here want them to stand up and lead them, but they want it done with "feelings" with care that the women appreciate, and view things from their point of view. Not an easy thing. It is my opinion that most younger men today don't really know what to do. Their instincts are at conflict with what society is training them to do and be and this training (if my sons experience is any measure) is starting far earlier than most realize.

Just some thoughts on the original topic here.

JL

Exactly !

Agree that there is a difference between the two.

I don't see the one in bold as a boundary though, not when POJA is used in M.

It's nice to know I'm not alone in wanting my FWH to take care of me, to get the door for me, and many other things that in today's society are deemed as wrong. I've always felt old-fashioned in this way, but it's the way I was taught.

FWH is a natural-born leader in all ways. People have always turned to him for guidance (including his superiors) and it's one of the main reasons I fell in love with him.

I agree with every word of this. I understand why men come here so confused; I was raised by a feminazi who destroyed 2 of her sons. Men are emasculated by women and kicked aside because they are ............emasculated.

That is why I want to help them out of this. Most are paralyzed with fear and afraid that if they act like anything other than a METRO SEXUAL they will be castigated. Acting on fear, according to expectations has led them to this place of powerlessness, and I want to help them out. They don't have to be paralyzed by fear.

WE have so many examples of men here who stood up for their families and started acting like leaders. It can be done.

I feel sorry for men these days and I don't mean that as a put down. Men can't look at an attractive woman or tell a joke in the office without and being accused of sexual harrassment or being a pig. If a man complained about such things he'd be seen as a weinie. Yet the woman who claims a man is oogling her has the twins and her rear hanging out. Not saying she deserves to be devalued but come on...what does she expect?

It is a shame that boys can't defend themselves in school without worrying about getting suspended, expelled or sued. Makes me worried where society went so wrong. I guess my son may get in trouble some day...

Mel,

I think you and I are thinking along the same lines. My experience is that more than a few sons have gone down the tubes and even to death because they were in extreme conflict between their instincts and what was expected of them.

JL

Great discussion. A little personal information. What is really funny in our marriage. My wife literally makes 95% of all decision around the house. When she asks me to do something (vacuum, dishes, trash) I mindlessly obey. I really do the jobs without giving any thought to them at all. So I find myself subservient around the house. My wife once asked me why I could not just get up and do the jobs without her asking. I said OK, all things being equal, I would like you to start a business which will generate 800,000 in sales with a net of 80,000.00 in pay. Then I would like you to go out and pioneer a new product from the ground up. And at the end of 2 years, I expect you to have over 250 customers utilizing the product on a monthly basis. I of course to expect you to be available in the evenings for installations an of course weekends as well. She has never required me to do more then mindlessly obey her requests for help with the chores. She now understands that while I am mindlessly doing chores, I am most likely thinking up opportunities to provide income and freedom for us.

How about a quick comparison.

List female inventors.

http://inventors.about.com/od/womeninventors/a/women_inventors.htm

List male inventors

http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventors/a/Famous_Inventor.htm

This should blow you away. Comments?

There are over 33,000 men inventors.

Women number in the dozens

To give women their due. Women are superior in organizational skills. I am sure if you researched the inventors, a huge amount of their inventions would have been lost, if not for women. Men are dreamers who think outside of the box. Women are practical and industrious. Much more then men. To me it is a prime example of the bible being accurate.

And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.

JMHO

Interesting discussion. I love the male characters in Sandra Brown's novels. They are confident men who lead and I've wondered where are these men? If I may chime in - mothers are getting mixed messages about how to raise a son. I wanted to be the best mom to my kids so I would read books on boys and girls. I remember reading a book on how boys early on are given the message that they are not supposed to cry - this causes later problem of creating men who are emotionally closed. I think intentions were good as far as getting a male to be more open with their emotions but somewhere along the way men have becomed confused on how to be a man in a relationship. I honestly don't know how my son will be with a girlfriend but he is better at communicating his emotions!

gg

Having raised 2 boys, I found that women in the schools expected my sons to express their emotions like WOMEN. They believed that men had the SAME emotional make up as CHICKS. Nothing could be further from the truth! Women find talking about their feelings to be therapeutic, men do not.

When my older son was killed, my younger son was HOUNDED and BADGERED by some female counselors at school to come in and "talk" about his feelings. I told those broads to BUZZ OFF. My son has never needed to "talk" about his feelings and he is very emotionally healthy. He is just not an emotional person and neither am I.

I see that many in the counseling culture don't seem to understand that boys are different from girls emotionally. They believe that boys are just chicks who are reluctant to share their feelings. NOT SO.

Pep:

Its so interesting to see the turns of this thread, and to see the turns that your earlier thread had.

So much around here has changed.

LG

Yeah, I agree.

Having an open philosophical discussion of ideas and core values only deepens the pleasures of marriage.

It is so much easier for people to skim over life's ups and downs without assessing the deeper value.

Some people only discuss "what happened" and never get to "what does it mean".

I think it is a difference beteween reaching only for the low hanging fruit vs the fruit at the top.

How so LG?

I had a hard time with the second link but I don't find the numbers you mentioned disproportionate either. If were are talking inventors from 40, 50, 100 years ago, women were traditionally in the home and usually did not go on to college either. Girls were raised to be wives and mothers.

And personally if my H gave that sort of answer to me about helping out without being asked, we'd have a problem.

This is intriguing.

What do you mean by it?

Not having been around for the first related thread, I don't know how the conversation turned.

I'm also curious like black raven, as to how things have changed LG?

When I read that, I was a little perturbed just because, in history, women weren't ALLOWED to do anything. We were considered the weaker/inferior sex. Plus, at one point, women had to use a man's name to get books published, patents, all sorts of things. So, those numbers are definitely disproportionate.

ouchthathurts, perhaps I need to go back and reread all of this, but I wondered, what exactly, was the point in posting that piece of information?

Then there should be a massive jump in women inventors say in the last 50 years. Guess what.......There isn't. Look This is not a dig against women. It is a difference that should be celebrated. My wife accomplishes more before 8:00 in the morning then I do all day. Another point. Why do you think men are such good inventors. Because in truth. We are lazy. That's right from the beginning of time men have constantly looked for ways to get out of hard work. Women (as a rule) are not lazy. Therefore their minds do not constantly seek to find a way to get out of work.

Thanks for the answer. I see what you're saying.

Sometimes I wonder how many men have stolen women's ideas, run with them, and gotten all the credit. :crosseyedcrazy:

huh? Who "allowed" men? Do women need special permission and not men? I was thinking women were EQUAL?

Well those weren't my thoughts at all. My H is not lazy nor do I think most men are. But I agree that woman can multi-task better.

Women have made great strides in other areas that are still male dominated. I don't know if I'd put much stock in one area alone. There are so many new career paths with the technology we have today. Heck I'm always trying to find a better way to do things and reduce the work...not out of laziness but because I want effeciency to do more enjoyable things with my time.

They are now, but, it's only been in the past hundred years or so that it's been that way. Before that, women were basically the possession of their father or their husband and completely constrained by society.

That sounds like very weak blameshifting to me and I believe most women are a tad bit smarter and more accountable than that. If women did not achieve because they believed they needed "permission" from Big Poppa Daddy, then whose fault is that?

I don't appreciate seeing women denigrated as nothing more than hapless little fools who can't do anything without some man's permission. that is not the behavior of an adult woman, but a child. A weakness in character. Men did not sit around and wait for "permission" and look what they accomplished?

Please lets not blame our weaknesses on men, that is not the behavior of an EQUAL.

I think the practice of blameshifting reflects weakness. Women who blame others for their failures are weak, IMO.

All right. You want proof. Go and measure the indent in the cushions of the couch in front of the television and see who's a$$ fits it.

WHAT are you talking about? I'm not sure where you got that anyone was blameshifting anything. I'm completely baffled. And, of course, women are smarter than that, but that was the way that their society was in that time. There is no blaming there, because that's just how it was. It's still somewhat the same way in other societies now.

Mel you and I disagree on this. :MrEEk:

Once upon a time and not even so long ago, women could not attend certain schools, could not vote, and if they defied their father or H that was reason enough to beat the tar out of them. In some countries this still exists today.

If we go waaaaaaaay back, women could be exiled and even killed for daring to speak much less wanting to educate themselves.

I don't 100% blame men for that but that's the way society treated women in the past.

I have no idea what you are reading into my words, but it's completely out of left field. Apparently, I cannot give actual, historical facts without being accused of blameshifting. It's a little ridiculous.

Huh? I know my H's butt prints are indented in the couch more than mine but I don't think he's lazy. He works hard during the week and wants to relax in his free time. I want the same too.

I don't know how we ended up here.

What I am talking about is the blameshifting of MEN for the lack of female accomplishments, ie: they were "little more than mens possessions." C'mon. Women are not that WEAK.

Yes women are much better at multitasking. But men are much better at focusing on a single goal. And doing what ever it takes to accomplish it.

You need another example don't you. OK. When you are watching TV with your husband what are you thinking about? And what are you doing? I can tell you what men are thinking of......Nothing.
Women are up doing 10 different things at once. Unless your husband is different then any man I know (including myself). He will be more then happy to let you work during commercials while he sits. Does he jump up and help you until you stop working? I doubt it.

We could always look at the massive effort it took to allow women to vote in America. Or the laws that had to change around the world before women were allowed to own property, who were literally invisible in their families as the men inherited everything. Or the American Indian women who were sent out to die when their husbands died because they were deemed valueless. Or the terrorists who are going around behind us in Afghanistan tearing down all the schools we built for the girls.

Women succeeded, but they had to be careful about it. Has anyone read The Dollhouse (Ibsen)? Very good commentary on this subject.

But we should probably get back to the real topic.:)

Show me a woman who blames her failure to achieve on some MAN not giving her something ["permission" "money" bank loans," etc] and I will show you a PHONY. I will show you a weak woman who is not an EQUAL. Would we allow a MAN to get away with that blameshifting?? What if Einstein invented NOTHING because his WIFE would not "allow" him to invent the light bulb? Wouldn't that be ridiculous?

A real feminist believes she is EQUAL and gets it done on her own. She is not some half baked fool who can't make it unless a MAN gives her something. Nothing equal about that. I have no use and no patience for self appointed victims. They are not heroines and not feminists, they are cry babies.

I agree, women are definitely not weak. I'm so grateful that I live in the time and society that I do.

ouchthathurt,

I will agree that I am constantly thinking that this needs to be done and this kid needs this before he/she goes to bed or school, etc. And, you're right. The hubby never gets up during commercials to help out. He doesn't even notice messes or the trash until I point it out.
LOL.

Why do men break wind more than women?

- Because women can't shut up long enough to build up the pressure.



Why do men die before their wives?

- They want to.


Have a good night all!

LG, I'll be on the look out for your response.

I think this is an admission that women were at one time NOT EQUAL. Many CHOSE to be weak and inept. They sat around and WAITED to be given PERMISSION unlike MEN. However, WOMEN are responsible for those choices, not men. Men did not sit around and cry victim waiting for someone to GIVE THEM something as many women have.

Where would our country be today if MEN had sat around waiting for PERMISSION from someone? C'mon, people. To say that women needed permission and men didn't is an admission of WEAKNESS. It is an admission of INEQUALTY.

Nor have pioneering women sat around and cried victim waiting to be given something they did not earn. They didn't have time to cry, they went out and farmed, started companies, changed laws, started banks, built bridges, bought and sold land. They didn't sit home and caterwaul waiting for some man to give them "permission" to do something.

My greatgrandmothers died millionaires and they didn't get that money from feminazis in combat boots or from crying victim. No one gave them "permission." They got it from simple hard work and SHREWDNESS. They didn't wait for some Poppa Daddy to come give them PERMISSION. They just went out and did it. I have alot of faith in my MOST OF my fellow women, and many of us truly ARE EQUALS. We didn't blame "society" or "MEN" for our choices.

oops!! I never was good at SCIENCE!!

Its not my fault, I was oppressed!! The MAN was keeping me down!! They didn't teach science to we little gals back in 1929!

Mel<---sorta likes dat game!

But I'm assuming they were still turned away at the voting booths, if they were in America.

IMPORTANT TIP for Mel

Who GAVE women voting rights? And who GAVE them to men?

I just wonder who gave MEN permission to vote?

The men who fought the wars, signed the treaties, and wrote the Constitution.

Who gave THEM permission? Who gave them permission to "fight wars, sign treaties, and write the Constitution?"

catperson, do you have your husband's permission to be on the computer this late?

Mel, we've already had the Women's Lib movement. No need for permission any more, lol.

Interesting apropos story:

Many people working on women's issues in Afghanistan agree: to empower women, you first need to enlist the men.

That was a very interesting read, catperson. It makes me even more grateful for the freedoms that we have here.

Hopefully their women's rights movement will come to fruition.

I hope you gals have permission from your MEN to be up this late!

Completely agree with this. Fastest way to destroy your relationship is to allow somone to disrespect you. If standing up for yourself means losing the marriage, you are still better off. Never take abuse and crap. Same for women, never abdicate your entitlement to respect.

CP,

I just cannot let this pass. Women had the vote in many states in this country from the time they became states. They did not have a national voting rights until much later. However, women did not die in the streets to obtain this right. It was granted by...men without use of force.

More interestingly, the voting patterns did not change after women were granted full voting rights. I wonder why? My speculation is that women got their say in BEFORE their men went to the polls.

To say that women did not have the right to vote until the suffrage movement is to ignore a fair amount of history.

To Ouch and others I will say NO ONE ALLOWS ANYONE TO INVENT. In fact, the truth of the matter is that most companies don't want people inventing because they are doing well without the competition of new ideas. Most of the inventors I know are almost single minded in their pursuit of inventions and uniformly have little use for "common knowledge" with regard to what can and cannot be done. The do not do it by committee and they don't spend a lot of time talking about it. They handle failure well.

Anyone noticing that these traits are more commonly found in men and not the standard operating procedure for women?

To get back on point, I will also say that rearing children is more of challenge today than in was even in my childhood. I think rearing boys is even more so given the distinct change in school behavior these days. And I mean the behavior of the administrators and teachers.

Someone mentioned the issue of boys crying. I've seen men cry all of my life, but it is done in private. I learned at a very early age that crying was a very bad thing to do. My father taught me a very simple lesson, you cannot fight, you cannot react, you cannot assess your oponent if...YOUR ARE BLIND. Crying blinds you and thus makes you defenseless, even in a verbal arguement.

Ouch also mentioned that women are better at multitasking, which is after all what school really requires these days. But, men focus and can focus to the exclusion of all other distractions. As I have gotten older it is one of the things I miss most is the ability to focus for hours and not even be aware of my surroundings as a address a difficult or complex problem. It is a talent I see more in men than women.

I could go on, but I do think Pep's starting of this thread to be very interesting.

JL

Interesting discussion. One of the things I admired so much about the MB program is that it focuses on how spouses should be to one another and their family, rather than the husband as head of household structure/concept as Biblical teachings tell us. I'm a little surprised to read so many opinions advocating that boys should be groomed into men to "lead" the household. Instead of one spouse trying to lead the other spouse, why can't it be a collective effort? Why the necessity to have one spouse as the strong one and the other as the submissive one? Why is respect associated with one ruling the other? If both spouses are responsible for the safety and security of their partner, why is 50/50 such an impossible concept?

Perhaps I need some clarification on what is meant by "leading" . . .

Well this one is tough because while i can see Mel's argument that no one (men or anyone else) can stop me personally from doing whatever, i also agree with BR, CP, and verve in that "society" held women down in history even though they allowed it to happen. "Society" still holds a lot of people down in today's world because they worry far to much about what others will think about them.

Why did it have to be “granted” by anyone whether with or without the use of force?


I am a woman and I can not stand that business in general runs by committee and it takes 153 meetings to make a decisions about something and most of the projects are led by men. I do not cry if my ideas or suggestions are not used although I will admit to fighting damn hard to get them in there to begin with.


I do not agree with that philosophy, my H is a very emotional guy I have seen him cry many times over something emotional and we have tried to teach are son a balance. He knows it is okay to cry, he knows it is okay to protect himself and fight back if necessary, however do not be the aggressor by starting a fight, he knows that it is okay to express his opinion on anything. Actually that is the same with all three of my children.



I know this all too well and usually nothing can penetrate that focus either which to me is not a “talent” it is detrimental in our M IMHO as I feel like I never truly have my H’s “undivided attention” because he is really focusing on something else and not really listening to what I am asking or saying to him. And it comes pretty natural to him; he seems to be this way most of the time.


Actually ouch started the thread.

B/R:

You wanted me to get back to you, but I'm on my way to play golf.

But your post:



That's my point. Go back and read Pep's original entire thread. And it didn't devolve into butt indentations, or voting rights, or whatever..... IT stayed on discussion point. FM and Bob even seemed to have had tremendous insight into thier own sitchs from that.

More later.

LG

JL, a generalization, by necessity. But on a national scale, certain rights have been legally forbidden to women until a movement gained that right for them.

As I said, if anyone has read The Doll House, they will see this in action. A fascinating play. The woman seems like a ditz and without rights or power, and you want to pat her on her head and say there there. But as you go on, you realize just who she really is. Because that's how women achieved things 100 years ago - behind the scenes.

So, LG, to get back on point. My SIL raised a wuss. If she couldn't find a parking spot right up against the building, she wouldn't shop - so her precious son didn't have to risk walking across a dangerous parking lot! When he and his dad found a toy gun buried in their back yard, they kept it a secret so he could keep it, cos she would have taken it away. She wouldn't let him play sports. In middle school, when he failed gym, she went to the principal and complained and threatened to sue, so he got a B. She wouldn't let him go out of town for college, so he chose the local university - but (his one and only big confrontation with her) he lived in the dorms. In his own city! Just to get away from her. Today, it's uncomfortable to be around him, he is so unmanly. He won't look you in the eyes when he talks to you. He talks down to the ground. He's white as chalk. He's just...weird.

Let me give you an example of why a marriage should be led by the husband. When I was in the navy. We had a Captain ON our ship and a commander IN CHARGE of the ship. If you compare a marriage to their relationship you will see a perfect example of a functioning marriage. The captain is like a husband. His focus is THE MISSION. The commander of the ship (or executive officer) is like a wife. His responsibility is RUNNING THE SHIP.
The captain is outward focused and the commander is in ward focus. Though the captain is in charge of the ship, He is not the one who manages it. The XO does. The Captain is the representative to the outside world. The XO focuses on inward things, with the ship representative of the home. On the ship I was on, the majority of the crew was under the age of 22. and the majority of them were teenagers. The captain and the XO were basically father and mother to the young men aboard. Though authoritarian and did not love them. But imagine how it would be caring for say 75 teenage boys. There was a chain of command yes. And the XO usually handled disicipline. But sometimes the offense was serious enough to warrant a "captains mast" Or a trial in front of the captain (historically done at the main mast on sailing ships). To bring the point home. A captain will commonly ask the XO what he needs to run the ship efficiently. He listens to his XO. And will help in anyway possible. This is how the family has been run up until today. Men focused outward through their jobs and women focused inward on their homes and families. Both jobs are critical. Neither job is more important then the other. and neither would survive without the other.

While we can guide the natural aggressive and competitive instinct of boys in our home, the school system, IMO, wants nothing more than boys to behave like girls. Girls can be easier to teach, take less time, and less headaches.
I have had countless challenges over the years with school principals and teachers.

One of many examples ... one of my boys took his ball glove and a softball to school to practice up his pitching with a another friend. Yes, the other boy had a cage. They wanted to do this at the back of a very large and isolated part of the school ground. Nope, forget it, no way ... ball too hard, not allowed on school property. Principal suggested a nerf ball (yeah right!) or why not use the benches in the yard to sit and talk, or read a book.

This was crazy for obvious reasons to anyone who has active boys.

This attitude does nothing but try to curb the instincts of future men.

That's my rant for the day.

I think your SIL is a domineering person and it has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman.

However like i stated earlier i do not personally know any woman that is that way and if i did i would likely not speak to her.

I must be living under a rock as i have not seen this where i live all kids are actually encouraged to be active.

Huh? I wasn't talking about her. I was talking about the son's femininization. I can't even imagine him heading a household, should he ever get married. Actually, he will turn out just like his dad, who never stood up to his wife about anything. His mom was just like my SIL.

This is not possible any more because is difficult to live without two incomes, therefore you must both take responsibility, sometimes the W has to the Captain and the H be the XO and visa versa.

I figured you were not talking about her my point was that she is a domineering person not because she is a female. And if her H let her "push him and the son" around and turn them into wusses it is not just as much their fault?

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".

We live on one income and have the whole time we have been married. My H makes the money and it is up to ME to budget it correctly and run the household. I have learned to stretch a dollar and make it work because this is what we have chosen.

Are there things we "want"? Sure...but our "needs" are met, partly due to our diligence in spending our money wisely.

It irritates me no end when I hear people say this. We are PROOF that you don't HAVE to have "two incomes". It's hard sometimes but FAR from impossible.

So you see why these instances were challenging, in more ways than one. But the main point was for the boys to behave in a less threatening manner. No risk of being hurt, less confrontation etc.

There was a great story on this on NPR a couple weeks ago. (it's an airing, not a written story)

I wasn't even talking about whose fault it was. I was talking about the outcome. That I think boys are supposed to be allowed to be boys, so to speak. In his case, it wasn't allowed, and he turned out an atypical (in our society anyway) male.

Oh I agree with you. It is not possible in a lot of families. The sad thing is, in to many families, the children are the ones who pay the price. And what they have learned is dysfunctional. This will become evident. As they grow up and DON'T start families. Because the priority was put on money and not them.

I hope you are not implying there was EVER a time on this forum when discussions did not devolve, grow, ebb and flow, get threadjacked. Let me disabuse you of that notion because that is the RULE rather than the exception on this forum and on any forum I have ever posted in the last 15 years.

If you re-read my quote it specifically says it is "difficult" to live without two incomes. In my community the average wage of a 2 income household is about $50,000.00 per year. I am sure that it would be extremely difficult if one of those spouses lost their job.

My priority has always been on my kids, i do not live to work, i work to live. I spend quality time with my children when i am not at work and have never taught them that money is the most important thing. Money can not buy the most important things in life.

You should however have to provide a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on their back and in today's world it is difficult to do without both spouses working.

I think women have always tended to be generalists and men tended to be specialists. I could list several possiblities as to why this has happened. But most of them probably have a general theme that historically, men have left their women (be it to go to war, go explore, go find their fortune or go find someone else), which has forced theme to develop capabilities outside whatever is defined as their traditional role at the time.

I think women being generalists has been amplified even more since WWII, when woman had to go to work outside the home. Amplified more during various feminists movements, more again during the 80's as people pushed for more and more wealth, still more and more in the last 20 years as it becomes increasingly difficult for a single income household to stay above the poverty level. In the last 60 years, most moms have been raising their daughters to be generalists.

Men have not followed suit. There are probably a couple of reasons for this, (some maybe just don't want to, others might be lazy), but I suspect the biggest reason why they have not followed suit is that it puts them at a competitive disadvantage. A man who tells his boss he's going to work a little less so he can spend more time with his family is going to get passed over. A "sensitive" man is going to have a harder time in combat.

In interpersonal reltionships, I think this dynamic is difficult. If their are 6 things, or roles, or activities a husband and wife need to accomplish, the generalist (usually wife) says, I think we should both do each of the 6 things at a 50/50 split. The specialist (usually husband) says I think you should do 3 of them and I should do the other 3. To me this is the classic cleaning the house arguement - husband says I work, you keep the house clean - wife says I work too, you should help me keep it clean. Husband says yes, but you don't work as hard or as much as I do. On and on it goes.

I think this creates a negative perception of their spouse in both parties. Both parties devalue what the other brings to the table. The wife may eventually view the husband as obsolete. She doesn't need what he does because she can do it herself. She devalues him and ultimately loses respect for him. The husband may eventually view the wife has inadequate. He doesn't care if she works, since that is his role, she needs to do a better job keeping the house clean. He devalues her and ultimately loses respect for her.

IMHO, marriages that prosper solve this in one of two ways. Either the generalists becomes a specialist or the specilist becomes a generalist. The SAHM might be an example of a generalist becoming a specialist, and these "transitions" seem to happen without a lot of turmoil. Although, I could be missing something.

However, When the specialist tries to become a generalist, things don't seem to go as smoothly. I suppose it's just the nature of the transition. Adding skills is generally harder than dropping them.

I think this is were feminization and emasculation come into play. If the man is trying to become a generlist, it will appear that he is being "feminized". However, as someone else posted, I'm not sure if this is the issue. I think the issue is the confusion around this transition. I think this is where the man is at risk of being emasculated. He is confused about what is he supposed to pick up and what is he supposed to drop. Initially, he tries to follow his wife's lead. But he usually fails. Tries again and fails, tries again, etc. These successive rounds of trying and failing emasculate him. He loses any direction for himself.

I think men fail at this for a couple of reasons. Certainly some are just incapable of it. Still others just won't do it. But I think the average Joe fails because its a constantly moving target. I think women suffer a great deal of stress about being generalists. At times they are in conflict about it. I think this conflict and stress produces a lack of consistency in what they want from their husbands. I also think this lack of consistency is why so much is written about why men need to better understand women, as it changes so much. Most women I know completely deny this lack of consistency exists, but I've observed it too often to agree with that.

Just my opinions.

This would be a great time for people to start going to night school and get degrees that will get them out of that pay bracket.

Well according to this thread he is NOT an atypical male. My take on this thread is that it is saying that society is teaching males to be that way (being feminized) and i do not believe that is true in my experiences.

rprynne, that was fascinating! Thank you!

I understand your point about the thread. Believe me, he is NOT typical, lol.

I READ your quote just fine, if you read what *I* said, it is that NEEDS are much different that WANTS and "most" two-income families choose that way of life for WANTS, not needs.

FTR, I too feel strongly that men have been demasculized by women trying to usurp their position as head of the household.

There really is no bigger a turn-on for me than a man who desires to be the head of the household, and I have NO PROBLEM letting my H do so. To try and usurp that would and SHOULD be inusulting to him.

The bible is very clear on this and to try and go against it has been disasterous in every sense of the word.

Getting back to OUCH'S original topic...

I don't know if it is "obvious" to everyone ! But I do understand the point you're trying to make.



Meaning ??? ... that if they don't "understand" their woman they are not really a "man"? I think that is what you meant. And I agree with you, that is really a deeply flawed basis for achieving man-status.



B R A V O




Yes. That means the woman gets to be the woman and the man gets to be the man.
There ARE fundamental differences.
And those differences make life oh-so-wonderful !



Please, the media is not the boss of me.


The media is not so kind to women either.
I could argue point-for-point the number of TV characters that make women look very unapealing. But I won't ... because I don't think this thread needs another man vs woman debate.


You are talking about the general lack of strong male role models, aren't you?
I think it would be good if you discussed the role models you think are worth their weight in manly attributes. Can you come up with some?


A point overlooked by some. Worth repeating.



So, can you come up with female role models that go against this trend? Current, not past.


That was my number 1 concern after I discovered my H's adultery. My complete loss of respect for him. That was the damage that worried me the most.
I know, and I have said many times, I cannot remain married to H if I don't respect him. He did not need to prove to me he loved me, he needed to behave in a way I could RESPECT for our marriage to go forward. That is a huge difference I see on this forum between myself and so many other betrayed wives.

To me - respect is the foundation on which love can be restored.

Without respect - there was no hope for us.


Are you telling me you did not start this thread to discuss voting rights? How DARE you

Do you realize how many people with degrees are out of work right now? And that income is not far from my state's average income.

Believe me we have a 2 family income for needs not for wants, we do without a lot just for needs.

Also...in our M, it has not always been this way.

Pre-A, I DID try to usurp my husband's position as head of the household, though not on purpose...but because he had not been taught to BE the head of the household. It had not been modeled for him and it seemed like it came onto me out of default.

This led to RESENTMENT and LACK OF RESPECT on both of our parts...and we all know where THAT led.

Allowing him to BE the head of household has changed our M and relationship dramatically...in a very good, POSITIVE way.

I would never want to go back to being the pseudo head-of-the-household. That very clearly created a M loaded with resentment and lack of respect.

Still_Crazy,

I thought I would respond to some of your comments. You asked You can vote, I just won't count it. You do understand the law of the pack don't you? Human's have always operated as a "society" and one of the functions of that society is exclusion of those they don't want to deal with.

Remember people did not always vote, for most of our "civilized" times going back thousands of years, there was no concept of voting. It was simply "might makes right". And since society was determined by "might", and men are the bigger, stronger, faster, guess who ruled? Common, please remember that even today democracy is an experiment not a long standing form of "civilized rule".

You also said Oh come on S_C, you don't like the democratic model??? You don't like to discuss things to death? You don't like to consider every little detail of what "might" happen if anyone did anything? Ok, I am tweeking you a bit here. Someday, I will tell you how at 40 something I finally learned the true definition of a functionary.



Whether you agree with it or not, the fact is lack of control of emotions (crying is the outward manifestation of this) is a very deadly thing to do either physically (yes driving comes to mind) or sociologically. I did not say crying was bad, I simply said what I was taught. But, then again I have also been many many more fights in my life than you have.



Ok, here is where I get exercised. YOUR attitude is exactly why schools are a hostile environment for boys. You don't view what we do as "talent", so you are going to change it. Young boys seem to come in two activity states: running around and deeply focused. Neither of those states are appreciated, nor effectively used in the educational system. Instead they are expected to sit "quietly" in their seats, respond appropriately to all stimulus around them, and shift topics constantly. Young children don't have a lot of focus but what they have should be nutured. Oh! and curiosity???? Forget it.

You are also right it was Ouch who started this I was tired and was reading between Pep's thread and this one. My apologies to Ouch.

JL

This is your interpretation of what ouch was trying to say.

I do not believe that societies view of men is that they must understand women at all. I believe it is quite the opposite, that men are still the "better" gender in the world.

OUCH - I wanted to discuss this a little bit more...


Weakness in men cannot be attributed to how women treat men. I think this is a cultural trend. When strong assertive men are cast as bullies or bruts, the culture has higher regard for men who are not strong in a traditional masculine way.

If you think about how military recruiters have recently been treated on high school and college campuses, you get the idea that the trend is to reward softer men and to cast strong men as something dangerous.

I liked how you mentioned "confidence and security" of the wife when she knows she has a strong man standing next to her. A man willing to fight for her. It's wonderful the way you phrased that.

Good job.

I am not being snarky here, but I am going to tell you some of the ways we are able to stay a one-income family in a "two-income world":

~I cook just about everything we eat from scratch.

~We RARELY do take-out or take the whole family out to dinner.

~I use coupons and have devised a list of our staple grocery items so that I know WHERE and WHEN I can get each item at it's absolute lowest price. I buy things even if I don't need it RIGHT NOW if it is at it's lowest documented price. This took months to do and is ever-changing, especially now that the economy is going down the tank.

~I shop garage sales for much of our children's clothes as well as many other items.

~I "stockpile" their clothes as well as food items so that I am never caught "off-guard" and HAVE TO go out and pay retail for an item.

~We ALL wear wear hand-me-downs, garage sale items, or clothes from discount-type stores and the best part is that NO ONE EVER KNOWS because you CANNOT TELL!!! I am very picky about the garage sale clothes we wear and our kids are now to the age where it MATTERS what they wear. Still I manage to do this.

Now, this being said, I do not work and my H makes decent money but not in the triple digits or anything...and we own two homes and the REASON we do is BECAUSE I am extraordinarily careful about stretching our dollars, as you can see.

And this is only a partial list of how I am able to get our "needs" met and STILL have money to buy a second home.

People are shocked when I tell them this is what I do with my "free time". But that's ok, it's worth it for me to stay home with my children but THIS is why it irritates me when people say you "have to" have two-incomes these days.

You DON'T if you go to extreme measures. The problem is that we have been taught to want INSTANT GRATIFICATION and it's too hard for most people to NOT have instant gratification.

We do a lot of waiting for things around here but that is ok...our family life is worth it.

This amusing article treads a little on the field of this discussion. The author is Fred Reed and he cetainly is an old-styled man. Reminds me of my Uncle Jerry.


Gelding, By Lily

The Sorrowful Rise Of Neuter Man




Ever wonder why masculine men are dying out -- the old strong, silent type who rolled cheroots one-handed while roping dogies with the other -- and being replaced by delicate androgynous Ken-dolls who look like Tinkerbell with a flat chest? Or why women look increasingly . . . not masculine so much as sexless?

Tell you what I think.

(I'll bet that surprises you.)

Used to be, men and women were different, and they knew it. They weren't in competition. So a guy could be Marlboro Man, or sort of anyhow, and grunt, and stand tall in the saddle, and say, "Hoo-ahhhh!" and ride Harleys. And if anybody messed with his kids or women, he'd take a tire iron to'em, or a thirty-thirty, depending--or at least imagine that he might. He had sense enough, anyway, to know that it was a good idea.

Back then, a woman could like a big hairy-chested hunk, because she wasn't competing with him. In fact, the hairier and chesteder he was, the better, because she was vying with her girlfriends to see who could get the manlier man. And a lot of women liked the idea of 240 pounds of muscle in a Stetson that meant to take care of them.

She meanwhile could afford to be cute, feminine, and curved, and dress like a woman, and maybe wield a gorgeous smile that she used to play him like a banjo -- which he probably knew, and figured that was OK too, because that's how things worked, and anyway guys are guys. She didn't have to out-hairy him. She wasn't trying to be a guy.

East was east, and west was west, and the twain would meet at the drop of a hat.

Then everything changed. Women decided they wanted to compete with men. OK. I can understand it. If I were a woman with an IQ of 160, I'd probably want to be a biochemist instead of child-herd and doily-polisher. The idea seemed reasonable to most women, and to most men. A kajillion gals poured into the workplace.

Thing was -- and nobody had really thought this out -- they didn't expect to compete on their merits as individuals, get as far as they got, and figure that was the hand God dealt them. They wanted to duke it out head-to-head, self-consciously and avowedly, as a class, with men. It wasn't Sally wrestling with the law boards. It was Us agin Them.

Which was a Whole Nuther Thing. No society or species had ever tried it.

Problems arose. Fact is, men are hard to compete with. Physically, they are taller, heavier, much stronger, more durable and more enduring. Except for nymphet gymnastics, there may be no sport in which women hold the record. Intellectually men have a large advantage mathematically and a slight one verbally at the high end, that becomes rapidly greater as one moves to the right of the mean; This is the Glass Ceiling. Men are more aggressive, exploratory, adventurous, and versatile. Sorry, but there it is.

Women moved up some, and some moved up a lot, but they didn't catch up numerically with men. It was because they couldn't, and that's a pretty good reason. And when you got down to it, women just didn't care enough. They had other things on their minds, like families and rugrats.

They didn't quite understand this. Nobody did. All women wanted, they said early on, was to be judged by the same standards as men. It was a bad idea. If I judge Cup Cake as a woman, I note that she is sleek, smart, funny, graceful, sweet as sorghum on a Moon Pie, and dances like a dream raised in Arkansas. I'm smitten.

If I judge her as I judge men, she's an emotionally unstable dwarf. How much respect am I supposed to have for a 5'3" guy who bench presses a twenty-ounce Pepsi?

Antagonism inevitably ensued. Men said that the ladies didn't want to be women, and couldn't be men. Why, they asked each other, did a first-rate woman want to be a second-rate man? The women said men were bigoted. Men said they were just observant. Women, who had always regarded men as commitment objects and pre-med objects, became enraged that men regarded them as sex objects. Men were puzzled. They didn't know what else to regard as sex objects.

I was confused myself. I remember a woman screaming at me, "Women don't want to be objects!" Trying to be conciliatory, I said, "OK, you can be subjects." That didn't suit her either.

They don't know what they want. And that's the problem.

They got angry and developed chips on their shoulder pads. War ensued, in which women raged and men didn't know what the hell was going on. When natural ability failed, women discovered, politics would serve. And so we got affirmative action, which means, "pretending."

Depending on the venue, the women needed very little or lots of pretending. The military was worst. It pretended either that women could climb obstacles, or that wars didn't involve obstacles. Soon soldiers discovered that most women couldn't throw a grenade beyond its bursting radius. This will make you unpopular on battlefields. Besides, a woman throwing a grenade looked like a sea lion waving its flipper. So the Army built a little wall for them to drop grenades over.

It was ridiculous. It is ridiculous. Affirmative action always is. Nobody is fooled. Still, it spread like peanut butter on a hot day. For those women who didn't like men anyway, it was sweet revenge. Except -- it wasn't quite. The men knew, and the women knew they knew. On the other hand, the checks cashed.

Intuitively women knew they had to push for unisex. To compete with men, women had to act like men, who are competitive, and get men to behave like women, who aren't. They bought ugly sexless suits, did boring things with their hair, and practiced being disagreeable, often succeeding wildly. Meanwhile the media, fronting for them, went in for pretty male models who waxed their chests and weren't threatening. The compassionate man emerged like a grub from a log.

The women won. Marlboro Man, or anybody too clearly of one sex or the other, is out of style. Both the New-Age woman, and her docile man-surrogate, would be intimidated, and ol' Marlboro would have trouble knowing which was the girl. God it's boring.

P.S. and the things that we have been doing to stretch our dollars have been so successful that we own approximately one million dollars in property...and all of this on ONE, under-six-figure INCOME!

rprynne,

I don't fully agree with everything you have said, but I think what you said merits a lot of consideration and thought. There are some big time dynamics issues in today's society and your post illustrates some of the more basic ones.

Excellent post.

JL

All I know is is takes a college degree to manage a Jack in the Box or a Taco Bell where I live. So I can only imagine how much worse it is for everyone below that education level.

Sorry for yet another TJ!

Not really.


When I'm sitting watching TV with my H, I'm enjoying the show and his company. If I get up during a commercial to do something, I don't expect him to get up just because I do. During commercials H might be reading work emails.

Esox, I agree with everything you posted.

Oh my God, I love the whole thing!! Someone else who didn't drink the feminazi KOOL-AID! I AM NOT ALONE IN THE WORLD!

100% correct ! I try to make certain my interpretation of what a poster is saying is accurate (by checking with him/her) before I argue with or against their point.

Good job!

SC, don't you think that some women believe that MEN are the "better gender" since they so bitterly compare and compete with men? I think that some women are crippled with envy of men because THEY believe they are inferior. I think this is behind much of the bitterness you see from these harpies in combat boots. They are emotional cripples without a cause. Healthy, well balanced women are happy with who they are, they do not solicit their WORTH via irrelevant comparisons to men.

Read it and posted.

I'll wait for more because I'm still not sure what I'm missing that you think I'm missing.

Esox,

Interesting article. It said many things I was going to say but better. I am enjoying Pep's and Ouch's conversation. I would guess this all comes down to the fact that society today wants to pretend that men and women are just the same and should act and react the same.

Bad idea as the article you posted says: Men make poor women and women make poor men.

Sadly, our schools (yes S_C most schools are like this) don't want boys to be boys.

I'll stop with a few comments. All of my children were active in sports. I was heavily involved in fund raising for the schools and for the sports programs. I cannot tell you how many Mother's chewed on the coaches because they did not treat little Johnny or Jane...FAIRLY. In fact, I actually had more than a few mothers come up to me and say "winning" is not important, and I would point to the score board and say apparently everyone seems to think it is.

My point, even in school sports (yes High School as well) you see women actively trying to "socialize" the sports so that it is "fair" to everyone. But, if you truly want to see the difference you all should coach a women's team and then a guy's team. It is truly amazing.

The biggest challenge in coaching the girls is to get them "socialized" so that they will in fact play with girls that are not their "friends" read not part of their group. Many girls would rather lose a game than pass the ball to a girl they don't like.

Boys on the other hand may hate each other, and happily beat each other up behind the gym, but when the whistle blows they will play to win.

It is truly remarkable to see the differences. But, what I have seen is that society and schools are trying to socialize men to be more "sensitive", less focused on winning, and less agressive in their outlook on life.

I don't like it one bit and I think the data shows boys are being harmed by it, which will naturally lead to big issues within marriage. The data is clear that by any measure boys are being left behind, both in schooling and in society. That does NOT bode well for women in the long wrong and it surely does not bode well for marriages.

Just thoughts.

JL

Interesting thoughts JL. I did just that thing the past 2-years at the high school level.

All the team's I ever played on, the girls would rip their opponents head off to win.

ETA: And wouldn't have a problem ripping the head off their teammate either.

Unfortunately, often their "opponent" is their own TEAMMATE.

Very true.

I do exactly the same things, i clip coupons every week and save in the vicinity of $50.00 each time i go to the grocery store, i use gas perks for fuel, i do not have a cell phone although my H does have one but it is paid for by his company, i buy all of our clothes at second hand shops or the clearance racks where i can ususally find things even cheaper than yard sale or second hand store prices, we do have basic cable and dial up internet which are not necessities but we at least go the cheapest way, none of our children got their driver's license until they turned 18 (my son is still waiting) because we could not afford driver's ed.

These are just some of the ways we make it on 2 incomes and neither of us have a 401K or anything else that we contribute into.

PS i do not have year round yard sale weather so i can only go when they are happening so i was wrong when i said better than yard sale prices, but definitely better than a lot of the second hand places i frequent.

I agree, they scare me LOL

Well I am so glad to hear that I am not the only one!!!

And where in the WORLD do you find clothes at second-hand stores or clearance racks that are LESS than the $.25-.50/item at most yard sales?!?!? THAT is impressive!

This is as far from the truth about who I really am. I fought with my son’s teachers who wanted to label him as ADD and put him on medicine. And I played Power Rangers with all of my children (I always had to be one of the boy rangers because the girls both wanted to be the two girl rangers) and we made up silly songs and words that we still sing and laugh about to this day and we played the ABC game in the car when we were riding anywhere.

I will leave this thread with this last comment as to not keep upsetting Pep.

To me, this just proves more my thought that the majority of men are not feminized at all, they still believe they are the “better” gender and they think that if a woman speaks her mind at all she is trying to undermine his manhood somehow.

Ya know this is going to require a whole other thread. LOL

lol, I think Texas must hold the record on the number of kids (and parents!) who attack other teammates (or opponents) in order to win.

YOU silly !

Before you leave ...

Do you feel that you cannot speak your mind to a man without undermining his manhood?

Or is it just certain topics?

<Where's the rolly-eyes smilie when you need it???>

Sure, there are pig-headed men out there who feel and act this way but to say the MAJORITY is just as haughty.

IMO that is a strong generalization and very disrespectful to the male gender. I wonder how your H feels about your thoughts...

[P.S. And what about all the WOMEN out there who think and act like THEY are the better gender??? There are at least as many and probably more. We can thank the "women's lib" movement for that.]

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.

I think that we all could eliminate much of our spending if we really have the need. I’m sure that some live in a situation that they just couldn’t make it with one income. They would have to downsize to a much smaller house or rent. One car would have to do. No eating out. No real entertainment budget. Kids would be withdrawn form hobbies and sports that cost money.

If the family in question made very little, there is government assistance.



Victory Gardens anyone? This is one of my hobbies. I can feed the family most of the summer and put away a lot for the winter. And I have very little sunlit yard for my garden. I do it in raised beds, high intensity gardening. It does save me some money and it really balances me to have my hands in the soil.

I think i was too busy being angry to notice this post, this is totally awesome and right on IMHO.

Do you know about Susan Polgar?

By the way, every time I see the title of this thread, I think it says The Fertilization of Men

I had this happen once with a girl once too. That’s funny.



Okay a few observations:

When I walk into a gym 10-minutes before practice starts with boys they are all around the baskets playing 1 on 1, or 3 on 3 or just shooting free throws or 3-pointers. If there is a shooting machine it will be out around a basket and a group would be firing shots away.

When I walk into a gym 10-minutes before practice starts with girls they are all sitting in specific groups far from the court slooooooooowly putting on their shoes and talking. They will do this until 20-seconds before practice start time. But that’s okay, because if they get their talking and socializing done before practice starts they don’t talk during the warm-up drills.

This is one of the many reasons why some long term boy coaches declare they could never coach girls. Yet I know several very successful girls basketball coaches who have done very well with boy’s teams. Our high school football coach has done an amazing job turning around the program and his background was girl’s basketball.

With a boy all that was necessary was to tell him what to do. He did not need to know why. Didn’t even seem to care. Girls typically need to know why you want them to do something. Girls want a cost/benefit breakdown. “Okay if that happens you need to do this because………” However I clearly found this type of instruction does work very well with boys too.

Early on, girls will follow a play long past the point of destruction where the only possible final outcome will be a turnover. Everything is literal and unalterable. “But Coach, you said to…..”

Early on, boys will abandon a play before it ever had a chance to start. Everything is basic guidelines and very flexible. "But Coach, I could see early on that I could get to the hole.”

This is why I don’t run any pattern plays. I prefer to teach basketball not basketball plays. Plays ultimately fail and the players have to know what to do when it happens.

I have a continuous team lay-up drill that runs typically for 2-minutes. A perfect score is around 24. Although the drill has several basketball skills the most important lesson of the drill is to teach John Wooden’s mantra, “Be quick but do not rush.”

My freshman and sophomore boys last year would always ultimately rush. The best score they had was 20. My varsity girls finally had a perfect score of 24 going into the last 3-weeks of the season.

Boys are tough on each other. They get right in each other’s faces and expect a lot from their team mates. If my girl’s varsity point guard got on another girl the way my boy’s point did last year there would have been tears and team meetings and parent emails and AD meetings.

Boy (loud, in front of everyone): “Come on man! We’ve been doing this drill for 3-months now. Wake up and get it! No wonder you never start!”

Girl (loud, in front of everyone): “It’s okay Liz! You’ll get it next time! *Clap Clap Clap*
Same Girl (quietly to her friend in line): OMG! We’ve been doing this drill for 3-months now. When will she wake up and get it! No wonder she never starts!”

Liz’s friend when she gets back in line (whispering) “You should have heard what she said about you! OMG!”

What a hoot!

Thanks JL! It’s an interesting topic to me.


P.S. JL. Have you seen the documentary "Heart of the Game". It follows a Washington State girl's basketball team and their coach for 7-years. It's great.

Cinder:

It seems like old Fred missed Susan.

I for one am glad to know that there are women Gandmasters now.

more about those presumed non-existing female Grand Masters

Some Grand Masters may not be listed on the list referred to because they are now inactive.

There is only one family to produce two Grand Masters. That is the Polgar family. Both of their Grand Masters, Susan and Judith (their Anglicized names) are female. There have not been brothers who were both Grand Masters.

TJ/

I love my MAN. He loves his WOMAN. We love our God. We make pretty babies and even prettier grandbabies. He is blue, I am pink. He is a rock and I am a flower. He is a provider and so am I. He keeps me warm, I warm him up. I love my MAN. He loves his WOMAN.

/TJ

I know. I'm weird.

I believe 2 of the 3 Polgar sistes are Grandmasters. However, I do find it a little odd that their father Lazlo, who believed genius can be taught, selected a wife who was agreeable to his "experiment", then after having children set about conducting his experiment to create chess genius'.

I kept reading it as the Fermentation of Men.

Is it easy to say when you DON'T make 100G??? Because we don't, and I still stand by my statement that there is a huge difference between NEEDS and WANTS.

Here in America many people do not truly know what a NEED is.

Me, too!!!

It's 5:00 somewhere, my friend.

Interesting (and hilarious) post of yours above, by the way. I'd bet the farm that if you had been DD14's coach - she'd still be in the game.

Those girls are lucky to have you.

Fox

You got angry because people expressed a different opinion than yours? WOW...That must be a tough way to live...

Mrs. W

I truly believe that all American children should be required to take an entire semester on the Depression. For just that purpose - to learn what a NEED really is. I still feel guilty throwing away holey socks.

I was not or am not angry at any of the people, just the subject itself angers me.

PS i also have learned a lot by hearing different opinions so it does not bother me if others are different than mine.

Agreed.


To me a good man will do right by others regardless of the consequences to himself and his word is his bond. Part of being a good father is treating their mother with care and respect. I can not see the two as independent. Encourage others (especially your children) to succel and expect the same of yourself. Succel = Succeed + Excel. A person can succeed but still be mediocre. Be dependable. If I can't depend on my own H or father who can I depend on? Be patient if I don't understand something and ask. If I did, I wouldn't be asking.

There's more but I don't want to write a book. LOL

Sad but true. Although some parents (sorry but I think it's mostly the dads ) need to calm down too. Some men I've seen are about to go into cardiac arrest over little league games. I'm all for winning but there are some parents that are scary.

B_R,

You said something that really has me laughing. AS I mentioned before, I played sports my kids played even more sports, but by FAR the worst sport was baseball, especially little league level ball. Dear Lord in Heaven, the parents were absolutely LOONEY. You would have thought the pro-scouts were their scouting little "johnny" and YUP the Dads were off the wall.

I don't know why this is true. The most fun sport was actually cross country followed by track. Soccer was good, basketball and football the most intense, but at least in football the kids could get their frustrations out and the parents were farther away.

Chrisner, I know what you mean about the plays thing. I once asked my daughter (who played post although too short 6') what she would do if her defender had a massive coronary at mid court. Would she still run the play or would she notice no one was guarding her and actually use her brain and make the layup? She looked at like "HuH? What a silly question?" So I asked her did she know why she ran plays. She said to score. I said sort of right. You run plays to get open and good shots, when you get them (think coronary at midcourt) you are supposed to take them.

I never taught plays either, just simple things like floor balance, screens, moving without the ball. When I coached young kids I had two rules which I told the kids in front of their parents. I said rule #1 If you have an open shot (defined as something you have made in practice) and you don't take it, I will bench you. #2 If there is an open player closer to the basket and you don't pass to them, I will bench you. It worked great. Our first game I think my little guys hit the backboard about 20% of the time. The Dad's were mortified and so where the Mom's, I could hear behind me "H you are going to take Johnny out and work with his shooting, this is embarrassing." We won the league this year, and I didn't really have to work too much on shooting.

Oddly, the Mom's and Dad's didn't react quite the same way with the girls. The hardest thing was to get them to use their bodies for boxing out and setting screens.

Which leads to my final statement about the differences between boys and girls. In sports boys don't seem to have any trouble with physical contact or body to body contact, the girls do. Yet, in society men NEVER touch on another other than you shake hands and are extremely aware of where people are so that they don't bump into them. Women seem to be in constant contact in society, touching, hugging, kissing, rubbing and they seem oblvious of their surrounding and bump into people far more frequently.

Just another mystery I'll never figure out. But it is true you coach them far differently, and therefore our system should be teaching them far differently.

Just thoughts,

JL

Black_Raven,

I like your list of traits for a man. It is short and sweet.

I noticed you did not put in he had be good with a vacuum, nor "in touch" with his feelings and such.

A loving, caring, dependable man, who takes care of his kids.
I could live with that as the definition of a good man.

JL

But I will say that he gets bonus points if he helps out and double bonus points if I don't have to ask.


Men have feelers?








Kidding

All over track and soccer! I'm too much of a wimp for cross country.

I hope my H doesn't tell me I get bonus points if I go mow the yard, because it ain't happening!

I hope my H doesn't tell me I get bonus points if I go mow the yard, because it ain't happening!

Well that's a given Mel. That rule does not apply in the reverse.

Heck my H doesn't even mow the lawn so he can't use that one on me.

Ok, you two behave now.

Feelers?? Yup, he may have those. But, feelings NOPE. No self-respecting man has "feelings" he has an EGO!!!!

JL

But real men wear pantyhose!

When picking up my kids from school the other day I noticed that my son has zero male teachers at his school. I knew male teachers would be in the minority but 0!? On the occassions I have spoken with his teacher...I like her and don't worry that she is feeding my DS some weird PC crud about what boys should be like. The best I can do is observe and listen to what DS tells me and plant seeds in his head to think about what will make him a good man one day.