To not disrupt another thread, and I don't intend this as a calling out on another poster so I will delete the name, but I read this:
Since when does a woman know what makes a good man?
They know what makes a good husband, a good brother... but a good man?
Come on!
And I was highly offended.
I know what makes a good man, and I'm a woman. This applies to all men, in all relationships, whether they are sons, fathers, brothers, husbands, bosses, co-workers or friends. What makes a good man?
INTEGRITY.
The same thing that makes anyone a good human being.
Being whole, entire, and undiminished. Adhering to moral and ethical principles (that they even get to choose themselves!) and being upfront and honest in all dealings.
What more could there possibly be?
Do I really NOT KNOW what makes a good man?
CWMI, no, sadly, we don't. As women in their world, we don't. And they don't know what makes a good woman, either. Sometimes they already have a good woman, and they leave her. (Not the guys in question, of course.) We know what we want in a good man - that varies according to the woman.
I agree that integrity is huge, but is also just a part of the puzzle. I wouldn't be offended - there is just so much that comes into play. It's just not a formula at all.
CWMI, no, sadly, we don't. As women in their world, we don't. And they don't know what makes a good woman, either. Sometimes they already have a good woman, and they leave her. (Not the guys in question, of course.) We know what we want in a good man - that varies according to the woman.
I agree that integrity is huge, but is also just a part of the puzzle. I wouldn't be offended - there is just so much that comes into play. It's just not a formula at all.
Boy, I do seem to remember the rest of MY post saying that men don't know what makes a good woman.
Why? Because we want some kind of beastly amalgam that is a lady in public, whiz in the home, and a porn star in the bedroom.
Really?
Come on! Not gonna happen!
Hello?
No, I will not from this day forward allow accountability of my masculinity to be held by women, as that is how it got fouled up in the first place.
It's no better than the women who try to be "one of the boys."
We are
different. The equation is not better or worse, less than or more than, just different.
http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi8120_differences.html
I was going to suggest what has been said before.
Or that if folks KNOW what makes a good man or woman, not all act in a fashion that indicates that's what they really want. After all, if someone is good, why would you leave them. If they were good enough to choose, why are they no longer good enough when the wayward spouse walks out? Either they didn't recognize the person really wasn't good. Or they no longer recognize the good they originally observed. Either way, the evidence indicates they didn't or don't know what makes the other person good.
How many good men are abandoned and betrayed by their wives?
How many good women are abandoned and betrayed by their husbands?
There is evidence out there that suggests many DON'T know what makes a good man or a good woman.
Finally, being a good man or woman is not sufficient to sustain a marriage.
I don't think triple H meant any offense at all, the thread is for a specific purpose but thats not it.
There are good men and women its a relative thing. We are all flawed..
Two different things. As HHH said, not better or worse, just different. Moreover, the experiences and hardwiring are different.
I would say...
Women know what they like in a good man...
Men know (should know, I suppose, as the other thread is exploring) how to be a good man.
Because we want some kind of beastly amalgam that is a lady in public, whiz in the home, and a porn star in the bedroom.
Really?
Come on! Not gonna happen!
I know quite a few women that fit this description...they do exist LOL.
Ummm...CWMI, why are you offended?
"Good" is subjective and varies from culture to culture. Just like 'good husband' would vary from woman to woman on what their definition is. For example, my wife thinks I'm absolutely a great husband, but some of the things I do would make CWMI feel unloved and not fit her definition of a good husband.
I think some guys don't even know what makes a good man. We konw what we're taught by our fathers/grandfathers/etc. We have terms like honest, integrity, etc. Some women would think a good man supports his family no matter what even if that means working 900 hours a week and some women would say "no way, I feel unloved by him working so much. A good man would be home with his family."
And we all have different ideas of what a man should be able to do. For instance, I had to help a guy and his wife to push a car up a hill. The car was light and he should have been able to push it himself. I think a man should have some amount of physical strength. His battery was dead and he had no idea how to work the battery cables. I think a man should be able to know how to put red and black together and jump a car. I've seen guys that can't change a tire. I think a man should have the physical strength to change a tire and know how to change a tire.
I think the men should be teaching their boys to change tires but many men are not teaching their sons to do this. And that of course is one example. I don't see men teaching their sons a lot of things (like opening hte door for a lady, etc).
Those that flew the plains into the World Trade Towers viewed themselves as good men fulfulling their religious obligations. I wouldn't consider them good at all.
I don't think triple H meant any offense at all, the thread is for a specific purpose but thats not it.
There are good men and women its a relative thing. We are all flawed..
To be fair to CWMI, the post she is quoting is NOT in the Men's thread.
After all, if someone is good, why would you leave them. If they were good enough to choose, why are they no longer good enough when the wayward spouse walks out?
That has nothing to do with the goodness of the person being left. That is all about the lack of integrity in the person leaving because they'd made a commitment not to.
Because we want some kind of beastly amalgam that is a lady in public, whiz in the home, and a porn star in the bedroom.
Really?
Come on! Not gonna happen!
I know quite a few women that fit this description...they do exist LOL.
Me, too.
"Good" is subjective and varies from culture to culture. Just like 'good husband' would vary from woman to woman on what their definition is. For example, my wife thinks I'm absolutely a great husband, but some of the things I do would make CWMI feel unloved and not fit her definition of a good husband.
BUT--if you were married to me, wouldn't you take my feelings into consideration when making choices about your activities?
And we all have different ideas of what a man should be able to do. For instance, I had to help a guy and his wife to push a car up a hill. The car was light and he should have been able to push it himself. I think a man should have some amount of physical strength. His battery was dead and he had no idea how to work the battery cables. I think a man should be able to know how to put red and black together and jump a car. I've seen guys that can't change a tire. I think a man should have the physical strength to change a tire and know how to change a tire.
I think the men should be teaching their boys to change tires but many men are not teaching their sons to do this. And that of course is one example. I don't see men teaching their sons a lot of things (like opening hte door for a lady, etc).
Being physical strong means a man is strong, that has nothing to do with being a good person. Knowing how to maintain a car makes one a responsible car owner, not a 'good person'.
Those that flew the plains into the World Trade Towers viewed themselves as good men fulfulling their religious obligations. I wouldn't consider them good at all.
They were evil; evil people never see themselves as evil. No religion promotes murder, not even theirs.
BUT--if you were married to me, wouldn't you take my feelings into consideration when making choices about your activities?
Of course.
Being physical strong means a man is strong, that has nothing to do with being a good person. Knowing how to maintain a car makes one a responsible car owner, not a 'good person'.
This is absolutely true. However, I think strength is good. I think men should have strength. Therefore, a good man showeth strength. Jesus loves strength. Orrrr...a good man is responsible. Being strong is a man's responsibility. Therefore a good man is strong.
They were evil; evil people never see themselves as evil. No religion promotes murder, not even theirs.
Right right. I think it's sensible to agree with this. It's strange how one can justify theirself for being right when they are wrong. I mean, we think it's right to give elderly, short Asian women with bad eyesight the okay to drive at night. You know teh ones that can't see over the steering wheel.
I think it's a mixed bag for what makes a "good" man. I consider myself a good man, but I also know I have my faults and obviously my WXW figured I wasn't good enough.
Some of it is attributes, values, beliefs, conviction, honor, integrity, selflessness, and honesty. It's the right mix and how they sync up with the "good woman" in question. If enough of those ingredients mix right, and the two focus on meeting each others needs, well then I think you got something really special there. Now the trick is finding that!
I just want to thank CWMI for taking this to it's own thread. It's very gracious, and saves other discussions from destructive disruptive debates.
Ok, so I'll post the full rebuttal.
This comment, made by the Tyler Durden character in the movie Fight Club, is one of the most memorable lines of that film and has oft been repeated and discussed. It�s sticking power is surely due to the way it resonated with many men�how it so succinctly summed up their life�s experience. Products of divorced parents, single mothers, or fathers who spent more time at work than at home, these men lacked a vital example of manhood growing up. Oftentimes, not only was their dad not around, male mentors in other areas of their life were few and far between as well. They understand well Nathaniel Hawthorne�s lament in The Marble Faun:
�Between man and man there is always an insuperable gulf. They can never quite grasp each other�s hands; and therefore man never derives any intimate help, any heart sustenance, from his brother man, but from women-his mother, his sister, his wife.�
Without male mentors, many men of this generation have felt adrift, unsure of how to deal with an indescribable but acute lack in their lives.
How did we get to the point where it is possible, as Edward Abbey put it, �to proceed from infancy into senility without ever knowing manhood?�
There are three primary social institutions that have historically served to mold young boys into men: family, religion, and education. Yet the masculine influence of these institutions diminished over the last century. Let�s take a closer look at each.
The majority of men today have spent their
entire lives being told how to "be a man" or to "man up" by women. And somehow, they continue to hear it, and get it wrong. Why?
Because the definition of a "man" or a "good man" as stated by a woman is given with the woman's interest in mind, not that of the man.
It's given in the interest in increasing women's power in the world, and diminishing the male role. And it works. Men have been diminished.
Because men had exclusive power in both private and public life, they controlled their surrounding environment and the way in which space was designed and decorated. Consequently, the world was once a very masculine place.
Thankfully, we�ve made progress in the area of gender equality and women have brought their influence to bear in both the home and the workplace. However, as with many other areas of modern life, the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other; instead of creating a world that�s friendly to both male and female space, we�ve created one that benefits female space at the expense of male space.
What�s behind the decline in male space and the proliferation of female space? It�s actually a complex and interesting story that goes all the way back to 18th century. Below we�ll explore some of the factors that have contributed to the near eradication of male space in both public and private life.
The "blow-back" of gender equality is the continued emasculation of men, and it is occurring nowhere more than in marriage.
And if we object? Misogynist! Chauvinist!
We get put put back "in our place" about this strange fantasy that we get to define ourselves. We get beat down with the worst-possible gender-based stereotypes and behaviors to beat and frighten us back into submission.
And we comply.
No one wants to admit they�re not funny. Have you ever met a man who willingly confesses to it? Now, you know he�s not terribly funny, and everyone else can clearly see that he�s not funny. But he still cracks his bad jokes as you all groan. In the end, though, there�s usually little harm done as a result of his state of denial.
Now, how many men will admit to needing the approval of women? Have you met many? As men get older, and they�ve suffered long enough, they�ll start to admit it and work toward change. But what about your buddies? Have you seen them shackled by this need for approval? What about you? Have you had the courage to honestly take stock and see where your need for approval is preventing you from being the man you want to be? Ready to stop denying and start growing up?
First, let�s define approval as it relates to our relationships with women. Approval is her permission for you to take an action. Approval is her acknowledgment that she won�t take you to task for your choice�maybe. Approval is giving away your power to do as you see fit. In other words, needing the approval of women makes you a pleaser.
Stick around for a moment and you�ll learn how curing yourself of this tendency to please will actually allow you to be happier in your own skin, be more respectful, be more respected, be a better partner, more compassionate, more present, a better example to your kids, and be more of the man she actually wants you to be.
Yes, dear. Sorry, dear.
We have allowed the "American work ethic" to deteriorate our role in the home, marriage, and family - and then we allowed the rise of women to finish the job in wiping us off the board.
Misandry is not the solution to misogyny, and keeping men "in line" doesn't work.
So, no. I'll no longer allow women to define me as a man. I did it long enough, and after a decade of emasculation and obsolescence, I'll never allow it to happen again.
And you know what? I'll be a better husband, father, and man for doing it.
Two different things. As HHH said, not better or worse, just different. Moreover, the experiences and hardwiring are different.
I would say...
Women know what they like in a good man...
Men know (should know, I suppose, as the other thread is exploring) how to be a good man.
Mrs. V - the problem is that we fall into a male stereotype on this one - we DON'T know, and many lack the base humility to admit it, or to explore it.
I thank the head of my science department for regular lessons in humility - nothing like being rolled up by a 5'1" 130lb man when you are 6' 250lb.
This, however, is about emotional and intellectual humility. Most often, humility is mistaken for "weakness," and the man-boy prevails.
Two different things. As HHH said, not better or worse, just different. Moreover, the experiences and hardwiring are different.
I would say...
Women know what they like in a good man...
Men know (should know, I suppose, as the other thread is exploring) how to be a good man.
Mrs. V - the problem is that we fall into a male stereotype on this one - we DON'T know, and many lack the base humility to admit it, or to explore it.
I thank the head of my science department for regular lessons in humility - nothing like being rolled up by a 5'1" 130lb man when you are 6' 250lb.
This, however, is about emotional and intellectual humility. Most often, humility is mistaken for "weakness," and the man-boy prevails.
Yeah, I'm totally not going to make any determinations on the man thing - as alluded to above, I'm leaving that for y'all to suss out on that thread. I definitely agree w/ the premise, and am following along to see what dialogue unfolds.
I will say this....as a woman, I have seen god men who have been squashed, pushed, nitpicked, pecked, whined, accused, and basically beat to a pulp (bad grammar but it makes the point) by the women in their lives who just will NOT SEE anything good in them.
I've seen women do the same.
And it makes me mad when I see it. At some point we need to learn to appreciate and be content....unless we just like being miserable and indignant all the time.
ITA tawanda. I don't agree with disrepecting the person in the process of advocating for change. I don't think it takes pretending to be content to show respect for our fellow man. IRL it makes me so mad to hear a woman with two kids they "I have three - the two kids and my husband." Surely there's a more respectful way to share experiences and brainstorm solutions.
Looking back, I can see the value of DH and I finding ourselves in a variety of situations. For example, when my DD was very small, DH worked for a pastor for whom family was not a priority, a particularly type A personality. It was hard not feeling like I had support or any time with him....but he did at least have a job with which he could do those little things....like pay bills. I also watched him be unemployed for quite a few months. I had all the "UA time" I wanted.....and I foraged through the couch for change and never got my hair cut and wondered how we would eat after all the profits from the sale of our house was gone. Honestly, I would have gladly given up some of that time for some income.
In both of those situations, my DH was a GOOD MAN. He was gone because he was working hard (work ethic is a character quality) and because he wanted to honor his employer and God. I was frustrated by the lack of time and support left for me and DD, but he was still a good man. When he was unemployed, he helped with the kids, We spent more time together, spent a whole day playing in the snow and laughing and eating snow cream. Yes, I was frustrated that we didn't know what the future held and that he seemed to be unmotivated about hurrying up and finding something. But he was still a good man.
I know both genders need support, but anyone who knows anything about biology, sociology, or who has ever read a marriage book, especially a Christian one, knows that identity and and being a good protector and provider and feeling as if the woman they vlues and respects them is IMPORTANT to a man. many women draw themselves up into to some blind self-righteous stance and say "Well, when he is respectable enough, I'll respect him."
As Dr. Phil would say "How's that workin' for ya?"
DH and I, about a month ago, talked about a lot of things, and he asked me to stop talking about certain things on forums. He made a couple of requests and explained to me how my words - even if they were honest and thought out - made him feel. Right or wrong, whether I had a valid point or not, I was hurting my good man. So I stopped. Because my responsibility to him - the one God gave me that I promised to fulfill - is more important than my "right" to vent and dog him about what I perceive to be imperfections.
And BTW, I ain't perfect either. So probably I use use that energy to be a great wife instead of milking the martyr complex.
There are base definitions for good, of course. Like.. "Does not beat me" "does not commit adultery" "is honest" and so forth. The entire "integrity" thing mentioned earlier.
But for me, good means other things too, like 'does not drink or smoke'. Al does not smoke, and doesn't drink. So by some of my base criteria he is good, too. He might not be good by some other women's definitions, but by mine he's good.
Going back to the 'squashing' of men by apparently domineering and hostile women--this runs right back to the integrity I spoke of in my OP. If a person is whole and undiminished IN THEMSELF, nobody can come along and diminish them.
IOW, nobody can emasculate you without your consent.
All the discussion about the topics and issues of 'being good' detract from the essential core 'goodness' that I'm talking about. I like what KT said about being responsible, and that fits with what I'm talking about...there's no set criteria for 'if a man does x, y, and z, he is good.' Competence in different areas, depending on the life situation a man is in (for instance, an Amish man would not need to know about automobiles, and neither would a Manhattanite), accepting responsibility to be competent in the areas that one's lifestyle requires, is a mark of integrity.
Perhaps, but it does address the thesis, that folks don't recognize good. Because if they did, either they wouldn't choose that person because they really are not good. Or they wouldn't cheat on them because they recognize they are good.
Character matters as well, I'm not taking that away. But I still contend that if one thinks they have a good thing, they don't risk it by trying to get something else that they perceive is a "better" thing.
Folks are still basically rationale, so they cheat because they are trying to fill some need and they perceive their mate is not good enough to fill that need.
The question is, is their perception based in reality, or twisted by filters, prior experiences, expectations and a poor understanding? Or is their spouse really bad?
After all, if someone is good, why would you leave them. If they were good enough to choose, why are they no longer good enough when the wayward spouse walks out?
That has nothing to do with the goodness of the person being left. That is all about the lack of integrity in the person leaving because they'd made a commitment not to.
And BTW, I ain't perfect either. So probably I use use that energy to be a great wife instead of milking the martyr complex.
Interesting way to put this. Are you saying you have a martyr complex and have just decided not to milk it?
I know several people IRL who wouldn't know how to function in life if they didn't live as martyr because then they'd have to look in the mirror and face some hard truths about themselves. It's so much easier to live in martyrdom but it gets old real quick for others around them.
I have been guilty before of having a "martyr complex," when I would do the whole "I do everything and he doesn't care, wah wah wah" thing. There have been times I have had a complex that could hardly be called martyr, since marytyrs are usually seen as people to be admired (Peter, Joan of Arc, etc)....and I definitely was not admired. As a friend of mine says, being crucifed is not necessarily the same thing as being martyred.
I have definitely had my share mirror moments. They are always most effective when I hold up the mirror voluntarily and lovingly rather than having it surreptitiously shoved up my a**, but like I said, I am very aware I am not perfect.....and willing to admit it.
And as far as someone not being emasculated unless they allow it.....perhaps it WAS my DH's choice to allow himself to be hurt when I acted like a snarky little shrew....but me acting like a snarky little entitled shrew didn't help
I think being hurt by someone's bad behavior and feeling EMASCULATED are two totally different things. But I wouldn't know what emasculation feels like. It seems to me that it's giving someone else too much power over your own sense of worth.
For instance, if a wife says to her husband: "You are always forgetting to take out the trash!"
He can choose a few ways to deal with it. Hear it as a valid complaint and address it while also addressing that he'd like to be spoken to respectfully and won't tolerate that crap from her. Or he can slink off and feel emasculated and quietly hate her for 'making him' take out the trash.
Definitely agree. Both DH and I have been guilty of being overly sensitive about valid complaints. And both of us have been guilty of not choosing our words and tones appropriately. I have to say that I am worse about this than he is. He doesn't go for the low blow, and in the past I have. Now I only do it when I sense certain things. And he doesn't give off those a-hole type of signals anymore because....well, because he's a good man.
Or is their spouse really bad?
The spouse who cheats has a lack of integrity, completely separate from anything about the other spouse at all. There are ways to deal with a "bad" spouse that doesn't undermine one's own integrity.
I know we have people on this thread on both sides of infidelity, so I want to be clear that I find it a huge plus in the integrity department to have made the choices you've made since Dday, whether it was to D the cheater, make amends for your own transgressions, or forgive your spouse and rebuild. Any of those choices show integrity, imho.
"I know we have people on this thread on both sides of infidelity, so I want to be clear that I find it a huge plus in the integrity department to have made the choices you've made since Dday, whether it was to D the cheater, make amends for your own transgressions, or forgive your spouse and rebuild. Any of those choices show integrity, imho."
This deserves a "like" button
Going back to the 'squashing' of men by apparently domineering and hostile women--this runs right back to the integrity I spoke of in my OP. If a person is whole and undiminished IN THEMSELF, nobody can come along and diminish them.
Other than the dripping cynicism in this comment, integrity also means that your own actions will not be carried out in such a way that it would diminish another. Accountability means that when you do and you get called out on it, you own up to it.
IOW, nobody can emasculate you without your consent.
Because words never hurt nobody, right? This is extremely short-sighted. If this were actually true, we wouldn't avoid love busters now, would we?
All the discussion about the topics and issues of 'being good' detract from the essential core 'goodness' that I'm talking about. I like what KT said about being responsible, and that fits with what I'm talking about...there's no set criteria for 'if a man does x, y, and z, he is good.' Competence in different areas, depending on the life situation a man is in (for instance, an Amish man would not need to know about automobiles, and neither would a Manhattanite), accepting responsibility to be competent in the areas that one's lifestyle requires, is a mark of integrity.
Hmmm... I find it interesting we keep tossing around integrity as a buzz word, as if it's an argument-ender.
"Well, if you just had INTEGRITY!" *Lightening crashes, the heavens open, sun shines, and a double-rainbow paints the sky*
1.
adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2.
the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3.
a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.
1) This definition is concurrent with the use of the word in the discussion.
2) In this definition, men are failing. We are diminished. We are growing in a world in which definition 1 of integrity causes men to hold to a moral standard of "work ethic" that puts them in traveling jobs, or jobs which they work 60-70 hour work weeks and are losing out on their marriages and families.
3) Men are not sound, not unimpaired. We are impaired by a lack of positive male peers and/or role models. We are impaired by a society in which male space has been diminished, and people think that opposite-sex friendships are "OK."
Additionally, while you may be able to know what a "good man" is, trying to leverage this opinion on your spouse falls right in to the category of Disrespectful Judgements, and may lead to Selfish Demands.
I started the Men's thread because I have the humility to recognize two things; that I myself do not feel like a complete, masculine man, and that there may be other men out there who struggle with the same thing.
In the straight-and-narrow; the female definition of masculinity, or gaining the approval of women for this definition isn't as high as an interest, as we get that often enough without solicitation.
Who is talking about educating their spouse?
This whole thread was a response to your assertion that women IN GENERAL have no clue what it means to be a good man. I didn't bring my argument to your NO GURLZ thread, or disrupt the thread of the poster where you posted this bit of educatin' the wimmins by saying they don't know jack about about what it means to be a good man. Not MASCULINE, as you put it here, but GOOD.
Who is talking about educating their spouse?
This whole thread was a response to your assertion that women IN GENERAL have no clue what it means to be a good man. I didn't bring my argument to your NO GURLZ thread, or disrupt the thread of the poster where you posted this bit of educatin' the wimmins by saying they don't know jack about about what it means to be a good man. Not MASCULINE, as you put it here, but GOOD.
Thank you for revealing your purpose and the driving force behind your offense.
I appreciate, and stated that appreciation, that it was nice of you to give your cry of foul it's own space.
I also stated that your quote was NOT from the Men's thread.
You'll have to excuse me if I would like men to take back responsibility for themselves, and I dang sure have no interest in "educatin' the wimmins."
You ask a question, you get an answer.
However, don't try to level some veiled call of misogyny at me because you don't like the answer.
Know why? Because it's not about women.
I right there with you on wanting men to take responsibility for themselves. I argue against the notion that it is something to be taken 'back'. Nobody wrestled responsibility from your hands in the first place. You DROPPED it.
I right there with you on wanting men to take responsibility for themselves. I argue against the notion that it is something to be taken 'back'. Nobody wrestled responsibility from your hands in the first place. You DROPPED it.
Is this a call towards me? (I own that)
Or, is it a generalization, which you mightily took as an offense when you assumed it was pointed towards women?
You said you would like for men to take 'back' responsibility for themselves. Take back from whom? Was it a typo? Did you mean to simply 'take'?
And I was speaking of men in general dropping the ball on responsibility to wives and children. It was men who decided that they would be wage earners, and nothing more. Your fathers, grandfathers. Every generation has a choice.
We're kind of far away from the original intent of the thread, which was to say that it is short-sighted to claim that no woman has a clue what it means to be a good man.
You said you would like for men to take 'back' responsibility for themselves. Take back from whom? Was it a typo? Did you mean to simply 'take'?
I'd like to see the next line in the rationale here.
I'm thinking that you take offense, because you think that for men to be accountable to men, that something has to be taken from women.
Am I right?
No.
Here's your signature line:
�We�re a generation of men raised by women. I�m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.�
THAT'S what I'm talking about. That is blaming women for male behavior.
No.
Here's your signature line:
�We�re a generation of men raised by women. I�m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.�
THAT'S what I'm talking about. That is blaming women for male behavior.
No, it's blaming a lack of male involvement, and you are choosing to take it that way.
The blame lies squarely on men.
Then why did you feel the need to say this?
No, I will not from this day forward allow accountability of my masculinity to be held by women, as that is how it got fouled up in the first place.
Then why did you feel the need to say this?
No, I will not from this day forward allow accountability of my masculinity to be held by women, as that is how it got fouled up in the first place.
Because allowing women to define our identity *as* men is part of the problem.
Men are at fault for the fact that it was women left to the task.
And I was speaking of men in general dropping the ball on responsibility to wives and children. It was men who decided that they would be wage earners, and nothing more. Your fathers, grandfathers. Every generation has a choice.
I thought that was the evolutionary scope of things? Men hunted and gathered so they were the ones that fed adn supplied the family. Of course we don't have to hunt and fish to live but we have to have the money to support those that do.
And if you follow Dr. Harley, he prescribes that men are the wage earners and should be willing to let their wives stop working if they should want to which means if you follow MB, the men have to step up and earn more, learn to do with less, or work more hours.
How about just defining who you are and not allow others to compromise that by the way they think you should be.
I understand what you're saying, HHH, and I think your point is excellent.
CWMI, I have to apologize for even taking part in this discussion.
To you, and to myself.
Again, I do thank you for creating a space for the discussion as to not interrupt other threads. I may be hard-headed, but respect is to be given where it is due, and in that sense, it is due here.
The thing is, the go-round here is getting nowhere, as you are bringing up points that I don't disagree with, in fact, they were points I originally brought up in my sources earlier.
Again, I wholeheartedly believe that men should be accountable to men for their masculine identity - in other terms "good men" - and I believe that nothing has to be taken from women for men to reclaim this identity. In fact, I believe the the marital and family unit will benefit if we "man up" and quit being doormats and/or man-children.
I have violated a simple non-negotiable, unalterable term by partaking in this - I argued as if I was seeking your approval.
I am not.
Someone mentioned masculine. Can you seperate masculine from man?
And if you follow Dr. Harley, he prescribes that men are the wage earners and should be willing to let their wives stop working if they should want to which means if you follow MB, the men have to step up and earn more, learn to do with less, or work more hours.
Dr. Harley is not in favor of more hours, or overnight travel, kt.
I have violated a simple non-negotiable, unalterable term by partaking in this - I argued as if I was seeking your approval.
I am not.
It felt a whole lot like you were arguing to prove me wrong, and that I indeed do NOT know what it means to be a good man.
The whole "thank you, respect!" thing felt more like approval-seeking stuff.
Just fyi, I really have no problem with you personally, and I love the manly thread. I've been reading AoM for a couple years now.
I have violated a simple non-negotiable, unalterable term by partaking in this - I argued as if I was seeking your approval.
I am not.
It felt a whole lot like you were arguing to prove me wrong, and that I indeed do NOT know what it means to be a good man.
The whole "thank you, respect!" thing felt more like approval-seeking stuff.
Just fyi, I really have no problem with you personally, and I love the manly thread. I've been reading AoM for a couple years now.
I can give someone general respect for respectable actions without needing their approval. I can also give thanks when someone does something that I happen to find respectable. Neither of them require the approval or acceptance of the target.
My greatest fear when I started the man thread, is that it would melt down into yet another quarrel in gender politics and be locked, and as such miss the entire target.
It's not personal at all, and never was.
I think I have spent too much time arguing with radical feminists... spidey-sense tingles too easily.
Being a good man or woman is not sufficient to sustain a marriage.
Which is why so many of us are skittish about remarrying. :-(
No, I will not from this day forward allow accountability of my masculinity to be held by women, as that is how it got fouled up in the first place.
This is huge !
I think I have spent too much time arguing with radical feminists... spidey-sense tingles too easily.
LOL
You might appreciate this hotly debated, and controversial, 2004 thread.
*LINK* .... not everyone's cup of tea, for sure. I think I like you HHH.
You're weird, but I'll overlook that for now.
No.
Here's your signature line:
�We�re a generation of men raised by women. I�m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.�
THAT'S what I'm talking about. That is blaming women for male behavior.
No, it's blaming a lack of male involvement, and you are choosing to take it that way.
The blame lies squarely on men.
Hold, this statement in your signature is extremely hard to comprehend without context. I can tell you that it bothers Prisca strongly and that I don't know what it means because I haven't read the article and I lack the context. It's probably bothering a lot of people who don't want to speak up.
I have no doubt that it means something I would probably agree with or sympathize with once I finally read the original article. But you might want to know that without context it might be throwing a lot of people off.
I think I have spent too much time arguing with radical feminists... spidey-sense tingles too easily.
LOL
You might appreciate this hotly debated, and controversial, 2004 thread.
*LINK* .... not everyone's cup of tea, for sure. I think I like you HHH.
You're weird, but I'll overlook that for now.
I'm a man in a woman's world... I suppose that does make me weird.
I'm a man in a woman's world... I suppose that does make me weird.
You don't understand how offensive you are, do you?
My H was raised by his father after his mother took off, and he grapples with the same masculinity problem that you seem to have. So, reckon me that? (that's southern for 'explain that in the context of your 'woman's world has ruined the man' thesis')
FYI, CWMI, I don't find his comments offensive to women.
Just weird. And young.
3 of my 4 bosses are women. Thier bosses are all women. The 1 guy that's a boss above them is a man but his boss is a woman.
I was raised quite a bit by my mom and gradmother.
So in my world, I agree with HHH. In fact, almost every one of my bosses has been a woman and over half of my professors were women.
So, I'm on the side with HHH that it's a womans world...at least in my world. Had my bosses/professors been mainly men, I would't feel the way I do.
I'm a man in a woman's world... I suppose that does make me weird.
You don't understand how offensive you are, do you?
My H was raised by his father after his mother took off, and he grapples with the same masculinity problem that you seem to have. So, reckon me that? (that's southern for 'explain that in the context of your 'woman's world has ruined the man' thesis')
Well for one, there is things like this. I make a statement, and you take it as a war against women or some tripe.
I suppose I should "know my place."
However, I am a man in a woman's world. I am a nurse. Men make up 2-5% of the total professional field. Some floors in our local hospitals have NO male nurses or caregivers.
I live in a woman's world.
When I work with certain women, they exhibit behavior that definitely exhibit that the WHOLE WORLD is definitely NOT a woman's world, and they approach me with this "one of the boys" behavior. Then there are those who approach me with the "men are trash" attitude.
Neither of those types get anything from me. I am not "one of the boys."
The third type, they just work. A man in "their world" is not a disruption or threat. To them, I am just another nurse.
Sometimes, this world I work in overlaps the world of meathead men - "You're a male
nurse?"
Yes, I am. And I'm about to poke your hip with this needle so that you can stop crying over those broken ribs.
I do, and apparently I'm not the only one. I love what they're discussing on the NO GURLS thread and i support the manning up of men everywhere...that is a blessing to women, not a threat. I just don't see why HHH has to include things like 'taking back' manhood (as if it was taken FROM them), and it's a 'woman's world', and that 'being raised by women is why men are not manly' and that women don't know what a good man is...it's all too much deflection of responsibility that could easily be stated as:
Our fathers messed up, but we're gonna fix that.
Leave the women out of it, stop it with the jabs that WE are the problem with men.
3 of my 4 bosses are women. Thier bosses are all women. The 1 guy that's a boss above them is a man but his boss is a woman.
I was raised quite a bit by my mom and gradmother.
So in my world, I agree with HHH. In fact, almost every one of my bosses has been a woman and over half of my professors were women.
So, I'm on the side with HHH that it's a womans world...at least in my world. Had my bosses/professors been mainly men, I would't feel the way I do.
I'm in college right now, just finished my 42nd credit hour, and I've had ONE female professor. One out of 15 professors. So my experience in education is quite different from yours.
Fun fact that's scientifically proven:
Men love testosterone and women love men that have a lot of testosterone.
I do, and apparently I'm not the only one. I love what they're discussing on the NO GURLS thread and i support the manning up of men everywhere...that is a blessing to women, not a threat. I just don't see why HHH has to include things like 'taking back' manhood (as if it was taken FROM them), and it's a 'woman's world', and that 'being raised by women is why men are not manly' and that women don't know what a good man is...it's all too much deflection of responsibility that could easily be stated as:
Our fathers messed up, but we're gonna fix that.
Leave the women out of it, stop it with the jabs that WE are the problem with men.
Here's my take, FWIW.
HHH is working out much of his personal "stuff" on the MB forums.
He's in a process. It's fascinating.
A man who owns his manhood points no fingers.
A man who blames others on the state of his manhood ain't "there" yet.
I'm in college right now, just finished my 42nd credit hour, and I've had ONE female professor. One out of 15 professors. So my experience in education is quite different from yours.
Well yer probly doin a manly degree like takin all that there math and science stuff.
You try taking classes like basket weaving, knitting, sewing, and baking and see how many male professors you have.
Well for one, there is things like this. I make a statement, and you take it as a war against women or some tripe.
I suppose I should "know my place."
However, I am a man in a woman's world. I am a nurse. Men make up 2-5% of the total professional field. Some floors in our local hospitals have NO male nurses or caregivers.
I live in a woman's world.
When I work with certain women, they exhibit behavior that definitely exhibit that the WHOLE WORLD is definitely NOT a woman's world, and they approach me with this "one of the boys" behavior. Then there are those who approach me with the "men are trash" attitude.
Neither of those types get anything from me. I am not "one of the boys."
The third type, they just work. A man in "their world" is not a disruption or threat. To them, I am just another nurse.
Sometimes, this world I work in overlaps the world of meathead men - "You're a male nurse?"
Yes, I am. And I'm about to poke your hip with this needle so that you can stop crying over those broken ribs.
OF YOUR CHOOSING. Were you aware when you chose your profession that it was primarily women? Quit yer bellyaching about your choices.
You could stop calling my opinions TRIPE, too.
I'm in college right now, just finished my 42nd credit hour, and I've had ONE female professor. One out of 15 professors. So my experience in education is quite different from yours.
Well yer probly doin a manly degree like takin all that there math and science stuff.
You try taking classes like basket weaving, knitting, sewing, and baking and see how many male professors you have.
lol. Is that what you took? (I'm an English major, btw)
3 of my 4 bosses are women. Thier bosses are all women. The 1 guy that's a boss above them is a man but his boss is a woman.
I was raised quite a bit by my mom and gradmother.
So in my world, I agree with HHH. In fact, almost every one of my bosses has been a woman and over half of my professors were women.
So, I'm on the side with HHH that it's a womans world...at least in my world. Had my bosses/professors been mainly men, I would't feel the way I do.
I'm in college right now, just finished my 42nd credit hour, and I've had ONE female professor. One out of 15 professors. So my experience in education is quite different from yours.
How about public education?
In 12 years of public school, with 7-12th grade being 6 classes per day, I had a total of 6 male teachers.
Those were formative years. Those were the years mentors were needed.
Those were the years where I was both pushed for advanced placement, as well as pushed for an ADD diagnosis.
Boys are twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADD or ADHD.
Why? Because we are different. And to improve the educational path for girls, we tailored the classroom to female tendencies.
Is that BAD? No. And we are seeing good results from that. My university is 70% female. Obviously we are succeeding in getting young women educated.
Is it worth the cost of leaving boys behind to do so?
No. Because that is not "creating equality," that is equalization through disparity.
Well, yeah, I didn't want no wimenz taking care of me!
i started intending to graduate in the marine sciences field. I actually graduated with an English degree with a minor in religious studies.
I teach P.E. Go figure.
I'm just going to say this about "male nurse".
The opposite used to be "female physician".
The MD would sometimes walk into a patient room and was given nursing task requests. To which she might reply:
"I am not a nurse. I am a physician".I love these problems.
2 sided, as usual.
BTW HHH, as you know, my son is in Army boot camp. When he finishes, he's off to combat medic training in Texas. This son is one tough cookie. He wants to become an RN.
We'll see what happens during his combat medic experience.
He worked as EMT for fire/paramedic unit in the worst parts of the mean streets of Los Angeles.
Some street combat experience, for sure!!!
If I can one day say "My son the nurse", I will swell with pride.
I'm in college right now, just finished my 42nd credit hour, and I've had ONE female professor. One out of 15 professors. So my experience in education is quite different from yours.
Well yer probly doin a manly degree like takin all that there math and science stuff.
You try taking classes like basket weaving, knitting, sewing, and baking and see how many male professors you have.
ALL of my college-level math and science (as well as English) was taken under female instructors.
This includes; biology, anatomy and physiology, microbiology, and chemistry.
Well for one, there is things like this. I make a statement, and you take it as a war against women or some tripe.
I suppose I should "know my place."
However, I am a man in a woman's world. I am a nurse. Men make up 2-5% of the total professional field. Some floors in our local hospitals have NO male nurses or caregivers.
I live in a woman's world.
When I work with certain women, they exhibit behavior that definitely exhibit that the WHOLE WORLD is definitely NOT a woman's world, and they approach me with this "one of the boys" behavior. Then there are those who approach me with the "men are trash" attitude.
Neither of those types get anything from me. I am not "one of the boys."
The third type, they just work. A man in "their world" is not a disruption or threat. To them, I am just another nurse.
Sometimes, this world I work in overlaps the world of meathead men - "You're a male nurse?"
Yes, I am. And I'm about to poke your hip with this needle so that you can stop crying over those broken ribs.
OF YOUR CHOOSING. Were you aware when you chose your profession that it was primarily women? Quit yer bellyaching about your choices.
You could stop calling my opinions TRIPE, too.
Bellyaching, eh?
No, it's a recognition of where I am, who I work with, and what it means.
You are the one who keeps assuming that I plant blame.
I don't.
Please, advise me how to refer to your opinion when it is based upon a far-reaching assumption?
Intuitive? Sensitive? Mystical?
I don't have to be right about anything except myself. Nobody has to take accountability for who I am but me.
So, yes. When you try to tell me what I feel or think about myself, I'm going to call it tripe.
(which really takes good preparation to be any good in menudo)
I had a total of 6 male teachers.
Would you like a hankie?
I had a total of 6 male teachers.
Would you like a hankie?
Big 'ol meanie!
In 7th and 8th grade, I had all male teachers. High school, I'm a little foggy on...I'd guess it was evenly split, but for math (4 semesters) I had one female teacher, for language (French) it was all females, for science it was all males, and I remember my male Free Enterprise teacher, and one female English teacher...I don't remember any of the rest.
My son is in middle school right now, and he has a lot of male teachers. We're in the Southeast US. I went to Catholic school as a young girl, so all my teachers were nuns back then.
Age discrimination !!!! 
In 7th and 8th grade, I had all male teachers. High school, I'm a little foggy on...I'd guess it was evenly split, but for math (4 semesters) I had one female teacher, for language (French) it was all females, for science it was all males, and I remember my male Free Enterprise teacher, and one female English teacher...I don't remember any of the rest.
My son is in middle school right now, and he has a lot of male teachers. We're in the Southeast US. I went to Catholic school as a young girl, so all my teachers were nuns back then.
I'm on the conservative side of liberal-ville. The land of feminists and animal-freedom-fighters.
Regional difference?
Age discrimination !!!! You've been acting a little strange lately.
Gonna call the Doc and get an order for a UA.
You've been acting a little strange lately.
Gonna call the Doc and get an order for a UA.
Actually, I am seeing the specialist this afternoon.
And, yes, I have been "strange", mostly because I am pissed as hell that I retired and almost immediately became very ill.
WTF?
So, yes. When you try to tell me what I feel or think about myself, I'm going to call it tripe.
Good luck with that.
I haven't said one word about how you feel or think about yourself. I've taken issue with what you've said or inferred about WOMEN. Not yourself. DAH WIMMINS!
In 7th and 8th grade, I had all male teachers. High school, I'm a little foggy on...I'd guess it was evenly split, but for math (4 semesters) I had one female teacher, for language (French) it was all females, for science it was all males, and I remember my male Free Enterprise teacher, and one female English teacher...I don't remember any of the rest.
My son is in middle school right now, and he has a lot of male teachers. We're in the Southeast US. I went to Catholic school as a young girl, so all my teachers were nuns back then.
I'm on the conservative side of liberal-ville. The land of feminists and animal-freedom-fighters.
Regional difference?
Must be! Come on down to the land of belles and brawls.
I remember when my program coordinator called me into her office to discuss my punctuality and my lack of verbal participation in her adolescent literature class. I asked, "well I'm making an A, right? "
She said "yes. But I think you're too concerned with how you look and spend too much time in the gym and not enough time really applying yourself to your studies. "
To which I replied, "Well thank you for your concern. But I think my degree will be just as good as everyone else's regardless of where I spent my time. "
As I got up to leave, I asked, "do you think if I spent less time working out I'd have a 4.0 instead of a 3.75? " the look on her face was priceless.
I'm not sure why I even remember that conversation except it was humorous.
You've been acting a little strange lately.
Gonna call the Doc and get an order for a UA.
Actually, I am seeing the specialist this afternoon.
And, yes, I have been "strange", mostly because I am pissed as hell that I retired and almost immediately became very ill.
WTF?
I thought that phenomenon was isolated to Ortho Docs?
So, yes. When you try to tell me what I feel or think about myself, I'm going to call it tripe.
Good luck with that.
I haven't said one word about how you feel or think about yourself. I've taken issue with what you've said or inferred about WOMEN. Not yourself. DAH WIMMINS!
If I say it once, you think you can remember for me?
It's not about women.
I find it a little embarrassing, however, that men have to be told by women to "man up."
I know why, though. Simple male arrogance.
I don't think I've had the pleasure of recieving the call to man up from any of the ladies here, but I did get told by one of my instructors that I think like a woman, and I don't do it well. Ouch. This from an unmarried, 26-year-old woman.
I wonder how that came to be?
Male arrogance is anything but simple.
Think like a woman? Did you ask her what she meant? Can you get it from her now if you didn't then?
I remember when my program coordinator called me into her office to discuss my punctuality and my lack of verbal participation in her adolescent literature class. I asked, "well I'm making an A, right? "
She said "yes. But I think you're too concerned with how you look and spend too much time in the gym and not enough time really applying yourself to your studies. "
To which I replied, "Well thank you for your concern. But I think my degree will be just as good as everyone else's regardless of where I spent my time. "
As I got up to leave, I asked, "do you think if I spent less time working out I'd have a 4.0 instead of a 3.75? " the look on her face was priceless.
I'm not sure why I even remember that conversation except it was humorous.
I have a 4.0.
lolz.
You have very tiny feet.
I wear 7.0
I suppose you could take it that way, or you could ask what is meant by the phrase.
When I read it, I am reminded of what authors such as John Eldredge or Stu Weber have to say.
Essentially they point to men thinking that women are the solutions to their problems. If they purse a life style of pursuing the right woman, they will be a real man.
The problem is, it doesn't work that way. No woman, no matter how good she might be can make a man a real man. He has to be that complete man FIRST, and THEN he can be a great, Godly husband for his wife, a great, Godly father to his children.
So when I read the signature, I'm thinking that it's a personal view akin to what authors like those men and others say. A woman is not the key to being a real or a good man. So if you are looking to become a real man or a good man via some woman, you are destined to fail.
Not because women are bad, it's because they are not equipped to make a man a real man, or a good man. So I see his statement not as a criticism of women, but for men who are looking to use a woman to become, "a real man."
It just doesn't happen that way.
No.
Here's your signature line:
�We�re a generation of men raised by women. I�m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.�
THAT'S what I'm talking about. That is blaming women for male behavior.
Feet? Oh no, I'm way into skis with an almost perfect 8.5!
I'm only 5'6 but I look much taller cause all my extremities are loooong. Maybe I look more apish. lol.
I suppose you could take it that way, or you could ask what is meant by the phrase.
When I read it, I am reminded of what authors such as John Eldredge or Stu Weber have to say.
Essentially they point to men thinking that women are the solutions to their problems. If they purse a life style of pursuing the right woman, they will be a real man.
The problem is, it doesn't work that way. No woman, no matter how good she might be can make a man a real man. He has to be that complete man FIRST, and THEN he can be a great, Godly husband for his wife, a great, Godly father to his children.
So when I read the signature, I'm thinking that it's a personal view akin to what authors like those men and others say. A woman is not the key to being a real or a good man. So if you are looking to become a real man or a good man via some woman, you are destined to fail.
Not because women are bad, it's because they are not equipped to make a man a real man, or a good man. So I see his statement not as a criticism of women, but for men who are looking to use a woman to become, "a real man."
It just doesn't happen that way.
No.
Here's your signature line:
�We�re a generation of men raised by women. I�m wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.�
THAT'S what I'm talking about. That is blaming women for male behavior.
Thanks for this.
I didn't have the words or expression to sum it up.
And, I'll admit to feeling a little badgered and cornered.
Again, it's jut NOT bout women.
A man who owns his manhood points no fingers.
A man who blames others on the state of his manhood ain't "there" yet.
QFT.
Pep, you always have a way with the turn of a phrase.
I do, and apparently I'm not the only one. I love what they're discussing on the NO GURLS thread and i support the manning up of men everywhere...that is a blessing to women, not a threat. I just don't see why HHH has to include things like 'taking back' manhood (as if it was taken FROM them), and it's a 'woman's world', and that 'being raised by women is why men are not manly' and that women don't know what a good man is...it's all too much deflection of responsibility that could easily be stated as:
Our fathers messed up, but we're gonna fix that.
Leave the women out of it, stop it with the jabs that WE are the problem with men.
Quick and short - you don't have to get it. It's not about you. It's not about women.
It is not required for you to "get it," like it, understand it, agree with it.
Because IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.