Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 226

Thread: How feminism destroyed real men

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default How feminism destroyed real men

    Women thought the last victory of equality was to make men more 'sensitive'. The bitter irony, says this male writer in a piece that will infuriate the opposite sex (including his wife Liz Jones), is women don't like wimps after all...

    At a dinner party recently, I encountered the depressingly familiar sight of a dynamic thirty- something woman accompanied by a nerdy male sidekick that she'd browbeaten into proposing to her.

    The mismatch in power was obvious. She was successful, ambitious and confident; he was a diffident, overweight, shrinking violet who measured every word he spoke in case he said anything remotely contentious that might offend her.

    On her wedding finger was the most enormous, glittering engagement ring. A mutual friend later told me she'd initially been presented with a less garish but more exquisite diamond but had told her fiancÈ to return it to the shop and get her something bigger.

    That huge diamond was his declaration of surrender in the sex war. But I didn't feel sorry for the stupid sap; he should have been man enough to tell her to get lost and find some other dummy.

    Instead, he'd been sucker-punched into a lifetime of nagging and neglect, and looking at his bossy wife-to-be parading her huge rock, I felt a shiver of pre-emptive schadenfreude.

    Her smug smile might have given the impression that her glossy-magazine-inspired life was all going to plan, but I could see the tragedy to come.

    One day she'll realise how dull and unfulfilling it is to have a man who doesn't answer back, who offers no challenge or danger - but by then she'll be over the hill and stuck with him for fear of being left on the shelf. Sadly, this is the state of many marriages today.

    Back in the Nineties, emboldened by the successes of feminism, women sought to slay the dragon of patriarchy by turning men into ridiculous cissies who would cry with them through chick-flicks and then cook up a decent lasagne.

    Suddenly, women wanted to drive home their newfound equality by moulding men to be more like them.

    This velvet revolution was reflected in a series of broader cultural changes. After decades of uncompromising movie heroes like Marlon Brando and Clint Eastwood, we were asked to fall for stuttering, floppy-haired fops like Hugh Grant; touchy-feely and hopelessly embarrassed around women.

    No doubt at the time, millions of misguided single women thought that having a man who could feel their pain and emote for Britain was a Good Thing.

    Now, over a decade later, women are waking up to the fact that these men are drippy, sexless bores. The feminisation of men hasn't produced the well-rounded uber-males women were hoping for.

    Instead, women are now lumped with flabby invertebrates, little more than doormats, whom they secretly despise but are too proud to admit it.

    Rather than partnership, professional women tend to seek dominance in a relationship. They map their lives out early on and pursue their dream of 'having it all' with cold-blooded ruthlessness.

    Young women have a crystal-clear agenda: they want the career, the wardrobe, the smartly furnished house, the 4x4 and the cute kids they'll ferry in it to expensive schools. No man is going to get in their way; and the men they choose for themselves are pliant and feeble enough to facilitate that programme.

    Concentrating so much energy on work and family matters requires these women to pick a man who is predictable and secure, who won't upset the apple cart by pursuing dreams and instincts of his own.

    These are cardboard cut-out men who gush with empathy whenever their wives and girlfriends need to dump their professional stresses and female angst on them: weak and soulless men who haven't the guts to make a mark themselves, who take the passenger seat in their women's juggernaut journey to post-feminist Nirvana.

    But having ticked off the various items on their life checklist, women are left with a nagging sense of dissatisfaction. Where was the drama? Where was the passion? Where was the stimulation and growth?

    It was all forsaken for an anodyne, materialistic shopping spree that is a Good Thing. ultimately a poor substitute for a real life. These women consider themselves to be alpha-females, but they are nothing but a pathetic sham.

    A true Amazon couldn't stand the company of a supplicant male, let alone marry one. Real alpha-women are the ones who can more than hold their own with an alpha-man.

    Deep down, women love men who stand up to them, who won't be pushed around. They love men who will look them in the eye and tell them to shut up when their hormonal bickering has become too much.

    They love men who will draw a line in the sand and walk out on them when they've had enough. They love men who know their own minds and are man enough to stick to their guns.

    I'm always telling my wife, the writer Liz Jones, to shut up. She gets into a prissy huff about it, but I know she respects me for not indulging her neuroticism. Long ago, I realised it is unhealthy for a man to embroil himself in arguments with women.

    While men want an argument to make sense and have a rational conclusion, women solely want the argument itself: it's a pressure valve for their emotions, and once they get started there is no stopping them.

    I have a very low boredom threshold; I can't bear having protracted discussions about where my wife and I 'are going'. Nor can I bear to listen to the gossipy, highly detailed 'He said, she said' monologues that women drift into when telling you about their day.

    I deal with these elements of the female personality with impassive indifference. People might call me a sexist pig, but I am the opposite. I love women, and I love my wife because she is brilliant and incredibly strong.

    I am a true feminist, because I only want to be with a powerful and capable woman. No sexist could cope with having a wife as intelligent and independent as mine.

    Our relationship would never have worked had I been an effete New Man, desperately wanting to sympathise with the female condition.

    My wife would have grown to loathe me for my fawning cowardice. She is a warrior and she needs to be with someone who is a match for her. Knowing the limits of what I will deal with in a relationship, I maintain my self-respect and, accordingly, gain hers.

    Men are now generally terrified of women. They hold their tongues for fear of being misinterpreted as sexist; they constantly attempt to secondguess their partner in order to avoid giving offence.

    They preen themselves with groaning shelves full of beauty products so they won't incur derision and scorn. They suppress their masculinity and present themselves as cuddly Mr Nice Guys, and won't project self- confidence in case it's regarded as unreconstructed machismo.

    This backfiring feminist conspiracy has, of course, developed hand in hand with the march of raging political correctness in Britain. The two have combined like some potent chemical reaction to explode in the faces of a generation of women who thought that a 'moulded' man would make for a desirable one.

    In recent years, men have been trained like circus seals to be inoffensive to women, and no longer know how to entice them and turn them on.

    But women secretly long for a man with swagger, who is cocky and selfassured and has the cheek to stand up them and make fun of their feminine foibles.

    They long for the rakish charm of a man who knows there's a whole ocean of fish out there, who isn't afraid of being himself in case he is rejected.

    The truth is, a real man doesn't care what any woman thinks of him. He doesn't care what anyone thinks of him: he answers solely to his spirit.

    Real men don't pretend or even try to understand women. They simply love them for being the mysterious, capricious creatures that they are. And they don't take them too seriously, either. They know the vicissitudes of the female mind, its constant insecurities and the fluctuations in mood.

    Rather than pander to them, they simply watch them drift by like so many clouds on the horizon. They don't get entangled in a woman's feelings and listen to her prattling on and on until she's talked herself out. Such strong and stoic men are exactly what women need to anchor themselves amid the chaos of their emotions.

    Sometimes my wife bemoans my detachment and laissez-faire attitude to our marriage and wishes I were more wrapped up in her. I tell her she would soon get bored of it, because men who put women on a pedestal can't make love to them in the way that women want.

    A man who is too in awe of his woman isn't going to tear her blouse open and ravish her on the couch; he isn't going to pull her hair and whisper profanities in her ear. Whenever my marriage is at a crisis point, and my wife's ego and mine are jostling for a position of supremacy, we inevitably have strenuous, battling sex.

    My wife is older and more successful than I am, but the bedroom has always been the arena in which I have brought her down to earth.

    The female orgasm is the natural mechanism by which men assert dominion over women: a man who appreciates this can negotiate whatever difficulties arise in his relationships with them.

    Last Christmas, my wife threw me out after discovering I'd been cheating on her. On the night we got back together, I made strong, passionate love to her. Unfaithful as I'd been, I was not going to let her have me over a barrel for the rest of our marriage. I needed to keep a sense of self and not allow her to mire me in guilt and a desperate quest of forgiveness.

    I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: 'Who's the boss?'

    The question threw her. Initially she wouldn't give me a reply, but I enticed it from her. 'You are,' she finally gasped. 'You are!' I am a very difficult man to be with. I know I have caused my wife great pain and anxiety. But she is an adult, and ultimately it is wholly her choice whether she wants to be with me or not - I cannot be anyone other than myself.

    I don't believe in working on relationships and making artificial efforts to give them substance. I believe in people being themselves and following their hearts towards whatever destiny lies before them.

    When women choose to be with New Men, they are choosing a life that will be only half-lived. I think a lot of them are finally waking up to that fact. Relationships between independent and assertive people will always be fraught with tensions, but they have enormous creative energy.

    Despite the many problems my wife and I have endured, we have both come a long way since we first met six years ago.

    We have challenged one another to grow - professionally, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. This would never have happened had she flaked out and gone for a softer option in her choice of partner.

    Bring back the real men, girls. You might just remember why you loved them in the first place.
    Great article. My sentiments exactly (apart from cheating. Why get into a relationship with a woman you could imagine cheating on? In fact, why get into a relationship at all if you're not ready for it?).

    Men: be men. Never apologize for it. Make no compromises for it. Never change yourself to a more 'sensitive' man to appeal to females. Besides, biologically, it's what women want from us anyway.
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  2. #2

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    That's it! I will fart at the dinner table and scratch myself! Women secretly dig it, the article proves it!

    Honestly, I've never acted overly feminine, or actually, feminine at all. I act how I want to act, I haven't been influenced by feminism at all. Besides the fact we can't fight in school...
    Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; March 23, 2008 at 12:08 PM.

  3. #3
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    Utter misogynist rubbish. The article acts as though there are two options, being the domineering, abusive, sexist pig, or the sensitive, wimpy, cry on your shoulder guy.

    It is simply not true. Feminism, above all else (and I do consider myself a feminist) is about equality. I am not a sensitive guy by any means but I do not claim that the "female orgasm is the means of domination of men over women".

    This article is laughable at best. Men can be strong and dignified, and being both overly machismo, or overly sensitive is simply degrading to men around the world. Act like civilized, dignified human beings. The author acts as if there is a contradiction between being a strong person and understanding women. This entire article is really a cover up for his failures as a man and a person.

    Horrible article, written by a pathetic braggart, and I pity those who agree with its position.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  4. #4
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
    Utter misogynist rubbish.
    How is it misogynistic?

    The article acts as though there are two options, being the domineering, abusive, sexist pig, or the sensitive, wimpy, cry on your shoulder guy.
    Ah, but for the majority of people there are really only two options. A good example to illustrate this is American politics: people are usually either Republican or Democrat, even though they are usually moderate and only slightly sway to one side. Yet are still pretty partisan.

    It is simply not true. Feminism, above all else (and I do consider myself a feminist) is about equality. I am not a sensitive guy by any means but I do not claim that the "female orgasm is the means of domination of men over women".
    But women are naturally submissive. Men are naturally dominant. Women like to be dominated (try it and see). What feminism says about women being equal is true - women are not below men and should not be discriminated against. However, many feminists seem to want men and women to be the same, or for women to be dominant and men to be submissive. This simply doesn't work, as real life experiences of relationships (mainly friends and acquaintances experiences, I'm not a relationship guy because I don't feel ready for one) shows, and poorly written articles like this one reinforces to those that refuse to open their eyes.

    This article is laughable at best. Men can be strong and dignified, and being both overly machismo, or overly sensitive is simply degrading to men around the world. Act like civilized, dignified human beings. The author acts as if there is a contradiction between being a strong person and understanding women. This entire article is really a cover up for his failures as a man and a person.
    Being overly machismo is not what many think it is. Even the author of this is not actually very machismo in this article because he felt the need to brag about his very private sex life. A real man who gets plenty of sex never feels the need to brag about it to his mates, because a real man realises that his sex life is the concern of the females he's sleeping with and himself; not his mates, and their opinions do not matter.

    Horrible article, written by a pathetic braggart, and I pity those who agree with its position.
    How do you act around females (submissive or dominant), and how do females treat you in return? Sorry for being personal with this.
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  5. #5
    SeniorBatavianHorse's Avatar Tribunus Vacans
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    5,158

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    I think both the article above and some of the replies here fall into the trap of a dualistic paradigm. There is little to debate in the article as it is seeking to prove a (his) point and not raise issues to explore so any engagement with it will only fall into the trap of its own parameters.

    The irony of a man describing what a woman wants in reference to his own masculinity is frankly deplorable - and any 'real' man will tell you that notions of femininity and masculinity are only ever roles which can and should be played by mutual consent. As a mature male, I can be both dualistic opposites in the sad writer's paradigm above to the same woman depending on her and my needs. I don't need to be one archetype, thank you very much. 'Iron John' stereotypes aside, his article speaks only of his deep insecurity about the opposite sex (which is probably why he feels the need to sexually conquer other women) and in fact only seems to gain self-esteem through belittling women.

    Do not for one moment think men are either Robert E Howard types OR wimpish emasculated eunuchs - we are as complex and fluid as our gender allows us to be - and we often can epitomise both roles as easily and as confidently as we wish. I pity the man who only thinks of himself as a single unmovable type designed to dominate women . . .

  6. #6

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    How is it misogynistic?
    Attacking women as domineering, self-centered and characteristic by "hormonal bickering". I pity that man's wife. It is that kind of person who develops into a wife-beater and patriarch.

    Ah, but for the majority of people there are really only two options. A good example to illustrate this is American politics: people are usually either Republican or Democrat, even though they are usually moderate and only slightly sway to one side. Yet are still pretty partisan.
    And the American bi-polar government is a failed system, leaving no room for accountability or true democracy.
    People come on a scale, from one extreme to the other, not sitting somewhere at either end

    But women are naturally submissive. Men are naturally dominant.
    That's the patriarch, male-centered side of you shining through. If you notice mixed boardrooms/classrooms women take control quite easily, especially as you go up the corporate ladder.
    Women like to be dominated (try it and see).
    And we're supposed to accept that you have? The bedroom is very different to the world around it.

    Being overly machismo is not what many think it is. Even the author of this is not actually very machismo in this article because he felt the need to brag about his very private sex life. A real man who gets plenty of sex never feels the need to brag about it to his mates, because a real man realises that his sex life is the concern of the females he's sleeping with and himself; not his mates, and their opinions do not matter.
    Being a "real man" as exemplified by society is sleeping around, being egotistic and muscular, being fascinated by football/rugby and loving beer.
    The truly nice guys, who succeed in life, are those who are relationship-based, selfless, healthy and careful about their drink.
    You will notice how the latter is much more similar to women.

    he was very submissive towards females, very emotional, gave them what they want all the time, stood for their nonsense, and was generally the stereotypical "nice guy"; ergo, didn't get much - if any - sexual attention from females.
    That essencially describes the guys girls like the most in general, those who are capable of being friends as well as phallic carriers, those who actually get to know women and so those who end up in the most healthy and progressive relationships.
    Believe me, if they're as good looking as the "dominant" men, they'll get the more sexual attention. They simply won't be so "out there" about it.

    Then he discovered that once he started dominating females, not caring, not giving into their demands, they started to want him a lot more.
    Rubbish, absolute bull. Its quite easy to see that relationship wise you are neither experienced nor mature, else you would know better then this.
    Women don't want dominant or submissive males, they want people they can treat as equals and be treated likewise.


    I used to never get female attention. No girl friends or nothing. That was because I used to act submissive towards females, basically. I had female friends that I talked to. I was afraid of making a move because it might offend them or degrade them. I was always up for 'just talking' with them. I was petrified of offending them. I always agreed with them. I practically felt ashamed to have lustful feelings for them. Basically, I was afraid to be a man around them. I didn't get into a any relationships, because I was too far into the friend zone and in my town there is a huge supply of junkies that are a few years older, who are willing to take advantage of my cowardice by making a move on the girls that I wanted but was too spineless to do.
    That's not a reflection on the girls, that's a reflection on you. Girls expect guys to make the first move, in your position you wouldn't have even expressed an interest, therefore would arouse none in return, it's simply social custom

    So I started to look up for weight lifting information on the web, and found bodybuilding.com. I looked on their forum for a month or so before I came across a small off-topic section called the 'relationship help'.
    You trusted a bodybuilders site for relationship help? Basically listening to advise from the most male-dominant, misogynistic and vain sub set of men there is? You're bound to go wrong generally.

    many posts from him offering help and great links (such as fastseduction and sosauve). I base my opinion and conclusions on women and relationships mainly from those sites,
    All sites written by men I imagine. For proper advice on how to seduce women, ask one! Women know themselves far better then any man does.

    So, there you have it. Of course, do still get things wrong from time to time. I do still get rejected. But generally I don't. In fact, I was surprised that what I read, which usually concerns girls in their twenties, was so true for girls in their mid- to late-teens!
    How many female friends to you have Shaun? As in close, best mate, kind of friends? Not the passing sexual acquaintance type.

    Light, like life, dies with the setting of a sun
    The Aneist's Perspective - A political and philosophical commentary

  7. #7
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
    Classic Is this a joke?

    So you think that any progression from our bigoted past is a bad thing? I guess you support racism and slavery too .
    Again, more assumptions...

    So you think that using women makes you a 'real man'?
    That's not what I said.

    I don't think that you are a sexist, I think that what you are saying is very sexist, and stems from the naivety of a conservative background and a lack of experience with real world relationships and situations.
    I'm actually from quite a liberal background, and have more experience than most my age in dealing with the opposite sex in situations outside of the class room.

    And yet, you claim to know how relationships do work, and how they should.
    I read.

    This is getting quite sad really. I feel sorry for your future failed relationships. No relationship can succeed if you think you should dominate your partner.
    Whereas I look forward to getting a serious partner, and how it will work fine, how I won't be taken advantage of,

    Relationships are about working together, interdependent. Not forcing your will onto others.
    Relationships are about the man being the man and the woman being the woman. This does usually mean working together; but when the situation gets tough, the man has to take charge, as is natural.

    yeah, it is. Remember your whole "American legal parties" analogy.
    No, it is not.

    Overall. I would wait to generalize like this (having read your brief history) until you have more experience. You were 14-15 when you stated you were getting "no girls".

    I would really recommend (coming from a person who has been in a serious relationship for years) that you start respecting your partners, it will improve every part of your relationship.
    I do respect my partners, but they are never worth more than my own self-respect.

    I'm not saying you have to submit, but just don't dominate. Voice your opinion, expect it to be respected, but allow your partner to voice his or her opinion, and respect it.
    I do allow partners to voice their opinion. You have misunderstood what I mean when I say 'dominate'. Take conversation, for example. I let her do most of the talking (girls love to talk), but I'm still on charge of the conversation. If it goes somewhere I don't like (gossip, for example) then I steer it away. If she says something I don't particularly agree with, but isn't worth arguing over, I simply ignore it. If she says something I find blatantly annoying or bigoted (a few days ago I was talking to a girl I liked, and the conversation drifted onto an event that was happening, when she said that there was a Muslim woman who came into the school, and she was afraid that the woman was trying to blow us up. I had to laugh at her ignorance, and then give her a bit of ridicule for such an outrageously silly fear) then I tell them and I do no agree with them. If they persist I will tell them to shut up. But I certainly allow them to voice their opinion, as I allow them to do most of the talking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruin View Post
    Attacking women as domineering, self-centered and characteristic by "hormonal bickering". I pity that man's wife. It is that kind of person who develops into a wife-beater and patriarch.
    But woman do bicker a lot, especially when they have hormones. I also bet that he is too bus having sex to ever be a wife-beater, and I certainly see nothing wrong with being a patriarch...

    And the American bi-polar government is a failed system, leaving no room for accountability or true democracy.
    People come on a scale, from one extreme to the other, not sitting somewhere at either end
    It is indeed a failed system, but it was only used as an analogy.

    That's the patriarch, male-centered side of you shining through. If you notice mixed boardrooms/classrooms women take control quite easily, especially as you go up the corporate ladder.
    Yes, I am very patriarchal, and I see nothing wrong with this, and neither do the women in my life as they are not foaming at the mouth feminists.

    And we're supposed to accept that you have? The bedroom is very different to the world around it.
    You don't even have to care what I say.

    Being a "real man" as exemplified by society is sleeping around, being egotistic and muscular, being fascinated by football/rugby and loving beer.
    Not necessarily. I like neither football or rugby, I am teetotal, nor do I think sleeping around makes one a man. Granted, I do have a big ego and now am quite muscular.

    The truly nice guys, who succeed in life, are those who are relationship-based, selfless, healthy and careful about their drink.
    You will notice how the latter is much more similar to women.
    People who succeed in life are typically those with type-A personalities. What you describe is a person who is mainly type-B.

    That essencially describes the guys girls like the most in general, those who are capable of being friends as well as phallic carriers, those who actually get to know women and so those who end up in the most healthy and progressive relationships.
    It describes the guys who do not get any female action until they are in their early twenties, then they get into a serious long term relationship with her (and maybe gets bullied into marriage) only to discover that she cheated on him a few times with the type of guys who you think society says are "real men". It's only natural. Women want the alpha male, not the beta male. I could be angry with a woman who cheated on me if I was being the beta male, because she is not designed to want the beta male, despite what feminists may say about 'nice guys'.

    Believe me, if they're as good looking as the "dominant" men, they'll get the more sexual attention. They simply won't be so "out there" about it.
    I find that girls don't typically care much about 'good looks'. Girls care infinitely more about personality than looks. They want the man with the type-A personality (alpha and dominant), not the man with the type-B personality (beta), even if he is extremely good looking.

    Rubbish, absolute bull. Its quite easy to see that relationship wise you are neither experienced nor mature, else you would know better then this.
    Women don't want dominant or submissive males, they want people they can treat as equals and be treated likewise.
    Sorry, but real life experience from countless men older than me, who know what they want and how to get it, and would never settle for anything less than an almost perfect relationship contradicts just about everything you say.

    That's not a reflection on the girls, that's a reflection on you. Girls expect guys to make the first move, in your position you wouldn't have even expressed an interest, therefore would arouse none in return, it's simply social custom
    You are aware that I realise this, that I realise the error of my ways, and then proceeded to write a whole paragraph which rubbishes the myth of girls liking the bad-boy, right?

    You trusted a bodybuilders site for relationship help? Basically listening to advise from the most male-dominant, misogynistic and vain sub set of men there is? You're bound to go wrong generally.
    Except I never went wrong.

    All sites written by men I imagine. For proper advice on how to seduce women, ask one! Women know themselves far better then any man does.
    Sorry, this is absolute rubbish.
    The first advice on getting women is to never take advice from a woman. Woman say they like the nice guy who buys them flowers and pays for stuff, but then that nice guy just gets put in the friend zone and she instead sleeps with the bad-boy who is just using her for sex, never calls her or buys her flowers and is basically the opposite of what she says she likes in a man. These sites were born when men realised the above, realised that the advice woman gave men on how to get women was what they believed at the concious level but not what they wanted on a subconscious level; so the advice was rubbish because we are still animals and still have animal instincts. Although it is most definitely true that we have evolved and moved on a great deal from cave man times - a man can no longer drag a woman by her hair to his cave to give her a good pounding, a real man doesn't have to go around fighting other males to prove his dominance, and beating up her boyfriend will not make her love you instead, all of these examples are of what used to be alpha in cave man times but is now cowardly and pathetic - we still have not moved into a time where women no longer like the alpha male.

    Subconsciously, all the women want an alpha male, whether they agree or not, because the alpha male is more likely to be able to defend his family and be successful in life, so will be able to provide more. Just like, subconsciously, all men want a really good looking girl, because it is still programmed in our minds that that features such as wide hips and large breasts are better for motherhood and giving birth. Of course, women will not admit they want the alpha male, the type of man that all the other woman desire, and men will not admit that they are that shallow. But it's true.

    How many female friends to you have Shaun? As in close, best mate, kind of friends? Not the passing sexual acquaintance type.
    None, because I don't want any, because I'm not looking for a female to be my friend, and because I'm not typically the guy that women want as their best mate and not anything more.
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  8. #8

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    But woman do bicker a lot, especially when they have hormones. I also bet that he is too bus having sex to ever be a wife-beater, and I certainly see nothing wrong with being a patriarch...
    All people have hormones... that sentence alone shows how much you know about the fairer sex.
    Too bus? I meant patriarch as the dominating "stay in the kitchen!" attitude to women, not the good, duty-fueled disciplining member of the family.

    It is indeed a failed system, but it was only used as an analogy.
    Using a failed system to make an analogy for a 'good' one only weakens your point.

    Yes, I am very patriarchal, and I see nothing wrong with this, and neither do the women in my life as they are not foaming at the mouth feminists.
    I have only ever come across one of these hard-core feminists, who I detest (it's a mutual thing). What kind of women do you know?

    You don't even have to care what I say.
    Why should I?

    Not necessarily. I like neither football or rugby, I am teetotal, nor do I think sleeping around makes one a man. Granted, I do have a big ego and now am quite muscular.
    Being muscular makes you attractive, having too big an ego makes you a dick. The first is a good thing, girls like it. The second is a bad thing, only you like it.

    People who succeed in life are typically those with type-A personalities. What you describe is a person who is mainly type-B.
    What kind of success are you talking about? I'm talking about genuine happiness and good will, I don't know about you, but I'm going for that.

    It describes the guys who do not get any female action until they are in their early twenties, then they get into a serious long term relationship with her (and maybe gets bullied into marriage) only to discover that she cheated on him a few times with the type of guys who you think society says are "real men". It's only natural. Women want the alpha male, not the beta male. I could be angry with a woman who cheated on me if I was being the beta male, because she is not designed to want the beta male, despite what feminists may say about 'nice guys'.
    Ok, I have a mate, he's a guy, about 6'1", reasonably built and quite attractive. He is also one of these "nice guys", the type who cleans up after parties, carries people to places they can sleep comfortably and has no issues listening to girl's problems. He gets more action then all of the "alpha males" you describe put together. He's a genuinely nice guy, who has self confidence issues and a small ego.

    I find that girls don't typically care much about 'good looks'. Girls care infinitely more about personality than looks. They want the man with the type-A personality (alpha and dominant), not the man with the type-B personality (beta), even if he is extremely good looking.
    Wrong, with girls, looks are everything. However, there's a scale. Beautiful girls will only go out with good looking guys. Ugly girls want to go out with them but are happy to settle with the uglier guys.
    No girl would go for an ugly alpha over a really good looking beta. Maybe as a friend, or to hook them up with an uglier mate, but girls can't stand going out with guys less good looking then they are.
    Just so happens that ugly people tend not to be alphas, as they lack self-esteem.

    Sorry, but real life experience from countless men older than me, who know what they want and how to get it, and would never settle for anything less than an almost perfect relationship contradicts just about everything you say.
    And if they get a perfect relationship then it's when the two partners are equal.

    Except I never went wrong.
    Yeah, and we're supposed to believe that? Everybody goes wrong.

    The first advice on getting women is to never take advice from a woman. Woman say they like the nice guy who buys them flowers and pays for stuff, but then that nice guy just gets put in the friend zone and she instead sleeps with the bad-boy who is just using her for sex, never calls her or buys her flowers and is basically the opposite of what she says she likes in a man.
    And you'll notice she actually likes the first one, and that afterwards she'll call the other by all manner of horrid and insulting names and refuse ever to be associated with him again. Men who actually give a damn about women would prefer to be the first.

    These sites were born when men realised the above, realised that the advice woman gave men on how to get women was what they believed at the concious level but not what they wanted on a subconscious level; so the advice was rubbish because we are still animals and still have animal instincts. Although it is most definitely true that we have evolved and moved on a great deal from cave man times - a man can no longer drag a woman by her hair to his cave to give her a good pounding, a real man doesn't have to go around fighting other males to prove his dominance, and beating up her boyfriend will not make her love you instead, all of these examples are of what used to be alpha in cave man times but is now cowardly and pathetic - we still have not moved into a time where women no longer like the alpha male.
    No, in this day and age the male you describe may 'get' women in bed, but will never keep them, whereas the 'beta' male you describe is the one who is surrounded by women who adore him, even as a friend, and is more likely to be successful due to this. He may not get laid as often, but at least he doesn't have to move to different groups every time he does.

    Subconsciously, all the women want an alpha male, whether they agree or not, because the alpha male is more likely to be able to defend his family and be successful in life, so will be able to provide more.
    Here you have a contrast with what you described as the alpha male. I doubt many doctors qualify as your average alpha male, yet they are arguably the most successful of men.

    Just like, subconsciously, all men want a really good looking girl, because it is still programmed in our minds that that features such as wide hips and large breasts are better for motherhood and giving birth. Of course, women will not admit they want the alpha male, the type of man that all the other woman desire, and men will not admit that they are that shallow. But it's true.
    Women don't actually want the alpha male, it just so happens the alpha males are the ones confident enough to get women in bed, drunk or not, and betas don't have such arrogance to have this kind of confidence, so don't. It has nothing to do with what the woman wants.

    None, because I don't want any, because I'm not looking for a female to be my friend, and because I'm not typically the guy that women want as their best mate and not anything more.
    No, you're not the type of guy that women would want as a mate, because you're misogynistic. That's all.

    Light, like life, dies with the setting of a sun
    The Aneist's Perspective - A political and philosophical commentary

  9. #9

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    retreact the statement
    Last edited by jaklei; July 01, 2008 at 06:24 AM.
    “"The robber of your free will," writes Epictetus, "does not exist”
    .

  10. #10

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men


    what happend to the Cavaliers?

    It seems you have to be dumb moronic-looking neanderthal figure in order to be considered a real man these days...

  11. #11

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    Metrofa*s haha.

    Why do they feminise themselves? How far will it go? Will it end someday or will it fall deeper into the "feminism" thing?

  12. #12

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
    It is simply not true. Feminism, above all else (and I do consider myself a feminist) is about equality. I am not a sensitive guy by any means but I do not claim that the "female orgasm is the means of domination of men over women".
    Actually for the most part feminism is hypocritical at its core. It seeks equality only when there is benefit or something to gain. It is why you dont see many "feminist leaders" talking about fair, neutral reproductive rights, the right for women to assume specific rolls in the military etc.

  13. #13

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
    Utter misogynist rubbish. The article acts as though there are two options, being the domineering, abusive, sexist pig, or the sensitive, wimpy, cry on your shoulder guy.

    It is simply not true. Feminism, above all else (and I do consider myself a feminist) is about equality. I am not a sensitive guy by any means but I do not claim that the "female orgasm is the means of domination of men over women".

    This article is laughable at best. Men can be strong and dignified, and being both overly machismo, or overly sensitive is simply degrading to men around the world. Act like civilized, dignified human beings. The author acts as if there is a contradiction between being a strong person and understanding women. This entire article is really a cover up for his failures as a man and a person.

    Horrible article, written by a pathetic braggart, and I pity those who agree with its position.
    I feel this post should be quoted onto the current page of this thread. I agree with it, and believe there is no real response that can top it. Good work Irishman.
    Patronized by happyho in the Legion of Rahl
    Quote Originally Posted by Eugene Debs
    The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.

  14. #14
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    How is it misogynistic?
    Diction, terminology and ideas...

    eg.

    That huge diamond was his declaration of surrender in the sex war...women sought to slay the dragon of patriarchy by turning men into ridiculous cissies who would cry with them through chick-flicks and then cook up a decent lasagne... I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: 'Who's the boss?'
    That last quote particularly. This man is stuck up, misogynistic and weak. Rather pathetic.
    Ah, but for the majority of people there are really only two options. A good example to illustrate this is American politics: people are usually either Republican or Democrat, even though they are usually moderate and only slightly sway to one side. Yet are still pretty partisan.
    What does the American party system have to do with the capability of men to be strong and confident and compassionate at the same time?

    But women are naturally submissive.
    Not true.

    Men are naturally dominant.
    Not true, men may be naturally more aggressive, but these archaic gender roles are idiotic.

    Women like to be dominated (try it and see).
    Some do, some like to dominate, same for men.

    What feminism says about women being equal is true - women are not below men and should not be discriminated against.
    Yet you believe women should be submissive to men, and men should dominate their partners?

    However, many feminists seem to want men and women to be the same, or for women to be dominant and men to be submissive.
    Where are you getting this dominant submissive crap?

    This simply doesn't work, as real life experiences of relationships (mainly friends and acquaintances experiences, I'm not a relationship guy because I don't feel ready for one) shows, and poorly written articles like this one reinforces to those that refuse to open their eyes.
    Nonsense. I like your "my friend's relationships didn't work like that so none can" argument.

    Being overly machismo is not what many think it is.
    It is expressing the exact views you are.

    Even the author of this is not actually very machismo in this article because he felt the need to brag about his very private sex life.
    Machismo is a Spanish term for sexist, and this entire article is sexist.

    How do you act around females (submissive or dominant), and how do females treat you in return?
    Equal. I treat them with respect and do not dominate nor submit. I am a confident person and do not feel the need to exert my "authority" over others.

    A real man who gets plenty of sex never feels the need to brag about it to his mates, because a real man realizes that his sex life is the concern of the females he's sleeping with and himself; not his mates, and their opinions do not matter.
    I like how you define "real men" and yet your terminology and ideas express great insecurities.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  15. #15
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,565

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
    Diction, terminology and ideas...

    eg.



    That last quote particularly. This man is stuck up, misogynistic and weak. Rather pathetic.
    No, nothing about that is misogynistic or sexist.

    Although he does appear to be quite insecure. I'd imagine that as a teenager, and in his early twenties, he was very submissive towards females, very emotional, gave them what they want all the time, stood for their nonsense, and was generally the stereotypical "nice guy"; ergo, didn't get much - if any - sexual attention from females. Then he discovered that once he started dominating females, not caring, not giving into their demands, they started to want him a lot more. So, he changed sometime in his mid-twenties, and his sex life sky rocketed. But power corrupts, and the power to bed many women certainly corrupts (turns men off marriages and relationships and monogamy in general), so he cheated on his wife ... seven times. It happens all the time with reformed nice guys.

    What does the American party system have to do with the capability of men to be strong and confident and compassionate at the same time?
    It was an analogy showing how people are quite polar. Compassion in a man as jumped on as a sign of weakness, so many man, being quite polar, lose it.

    Not true.
    Is true.

    Not true, men may be naturally more aggressive, but these archaic gender roles are idiotic.
    Again, is true, and men being dominant and woman being submissive is hardly an 'archaic' gender role. It's how it is, and works best. The man in the article didn't deserve to be taken back, but because he's so ing dominant and alpha, he was, because the woman couldn't resist the dominant male. Sad but true.

    Some do, some like to dominate, same for men.
    Nearly every women secretly likes to submit to the dominant male. Go to much dances? Women hate a man who can't lead.

    Yet you believe women should be submissive to men, and men should dominate their partners?
    How other people behave is none of my concern. If men want to submit to women, they can. But they shouldn't get upset when they discover their girlfriend is now cheating on them, or begins to start to try to dominate their whole lives.

    Where are you getting this dominant submissive crap?
    It's how men and women interact, basically. Ever had a conversation with a girl that you wanted to be more than friends with? These always go best if you lead the conversation (whilst letting her do most of the taking), where it goes, and what it's about, and if you don't care about it tell her to drop it. Ever been on a date with a girl? These go best if you decide where to go, what to do, where to eat (it can be hard work being dominant ).

    Nonsense. I like your "my friend's relationships didn't work like that so none can" argument.
    Whereas you have absolutely no real life experience to explain why it is "nonsense".

    It is expressing the exact views you are.
    Judging by the type of person you are, I feel I should take that as a compliment.

    Machismo is a Spanish term for sexist, and this entire article is sexist.
    I was using the dictionary definition (I don't do Spanish).

    "a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity."

    And how exactly is that sexist? Or is that just the automatic response from feminists when they see something they dislike?

    Equal. I treat them with respect and do not dominate nor submit. I am a confident person and do not feel the need to exert my "authority" over others.
    Ah, but in male-female interactions there's usually always a dominant and a submissive. Since you seem quite strong principled and confident, then yes, you probably do dominate.

    I like how you define "real men" and yet your terminology and ideas express great insecurities.
    How do they express great insecurities?
    Under the patronage of Rhah and brother of eventhorizen.

  16. #16
    Dracula's Avatar Praefectus
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    The article is excellent. There is no such thing as equality. "Everywhere where we can observe two things bound in one,we can see a leading and a following role,it is in the nature of all things." writes Aristotle. It is inpossible to not have a dominant position. If the woman takes it,I am sorry the man is simply commanded.

    On the other hand,the author exaggerates a bit for the importance of the orgasm. But there can be also no way that an enjoyable sex can be felt with the man being unable to express himself as he wishes- which is in all cases with a dominant woman I suppose.

  17. #17
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    It was an analogy showing how people are quite polar.
    Yet it is best when they are not.

    It's how it is, and works best.
    Evidence?

    It's how men and women interact, basically.
    This coming from a person who says he is not a 'relationship' person... Brilliant. I love children who think they know everything about the world.

    Whereas you have absolutely no real life experience to explain why it is "nonsense".
    Who are you to say this? I guarantee you that I have had much more experience than you, also are you even in university yet? Again, I love children who know everything.

    How can you make these generalized, sweeping statements when you have, yourself stated that you are 'not ready for a relationship'.

    Since you seem quite strong principled and confident, then yes, you probably do dominate.
    So what? Women cant be principled and confident at the same time? That is a very sexist attitude.

    Judging by the type of person you are, I feel I should take that as a compliment.
    The type of person I am? Quite an assertion...

    And how exactly is that sexist?
    That manliness entails a right to dominate? The belief that one sex is inherently better or holds a higher place (domination) is the definition of sexism.
    Last edited by Irishman; March 23, 2008 at 02:02 PM.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  18. #18
    Irishman's Avatar Let me out of my mind
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,850

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    "Everywhere where we can observe two things bound in one,we can see a leading and a following role,it is in the nature of all things." writes Aristotle.
    There are plenty of interdependent, respectful relationships, but they must be cultivated. You cannot have a healthy relationship without respect, and it sounds like the author and others do not wish to respect women, and thus will never have a fulfilling relationship with them.

    On the other hand,the author exaggerates a bit for the importance of the orgasm. But there can be also no way that an enjoyable sex can be felt with the man being unable to express himself as he wishes- which is in all cases with a dominant woman I suppose.
    Sorry mate, but what you and the rest of these guys need to realize (esp. the author) is that you can be replaced (sexually) by a vibrating piece of plastic.

    The sad fact is, if a man cannot fulfill his partner both physically and emotionally, then he has but an empty relationship. It is hollow, meaningless.

    Also, there will come a time (when the vigor of youth has passed) when sex becomes secondary in the relationship, and I am sorry for men like this, who do not realize that sex cannot be the overriding factor in a successful relationship. That is not to say it is not important, but this author pretends like he controls his 'woman' through his sexual prowess. Laughable.
    The flow of time is always cruel... its speed seems different for each person, but no one can change it... A thing that does not change with time is a memory of younger days...

    Under the perspicacious and benevolent patronage of the great and honorable Rez and a member of S.I.N


    He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

  19. #19
    Gwendylyn's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,353

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    The mismatch in power was obvious. She was successful, ambitious and confident; he was a diffident, overweight, shrinking violet who measured every word he spoke in case he said anything remotely contentious that might offend her.
    Sounds not all that different from a relationship between an overbearing husband and the totally submissive wife that asks "how high?" when he says "jump".

    There is something wrong with both of those types of relationships. But hey, we'll ignore that this is a situation that happens with both genders and just point to the female-male dominant-submissive extremes as a recent epidemic!

    Back in the Nineties, emboldened by the successes of feminism, women sought to slay the dragon of patriarchy by turning men into ridiculous cissies who would cry with them through chick-flicks and then cook up a decent lasagne.
    Complete misunderstanding of mainstream feminism. Painting people who do feminine activities as "ridiculous cissies". Saying that crying through chick-flicks and cooking make people "ridiculous cissies".

    Look at it from a female perspective. I am a ing good cook and I easily cry through the best dramas. The article just described me as a "ridiculous cissy" except for the small qualifier that I'm female.

    It's typical misogynistic drivel that relies on the double standard that it's perfectly fine for women to be homemakers, cry, cook, and nurse, but if a male were to do the same it would be lowering himself. It assumes that feminine things are of lower worth.

    Suddenly, women wanted to drive home their newfound equality by moulding men to be more like them.
    Oh noes! We must prepare against the onslought of controlling women! They are running rampant throughout society! DEFEND YOURSELVES!

    He just presents a statement that "this is what women are doing" without any proof, justification, or even a qualifier that says "a minority of women". he states it as fact (much like you keep doing, Shaun) without even the slightest shred of evidence except some random anecdotes. The people who agree with him int he first place will nod along and say "Yes, exactly!" while everyone else will shake their heads at the unfounded claims he constantly makes.

    Rather than partnership, professional women tend to seek dominance in a relationship. They map their lives out early on and pursue their dream of 'having it all' with cold-blooded ruthlessness.
    You hear that? Career women are "cold-blooded ruthless". I'm a career woman. I guess my cold-blooded ruthlessness means I better look for a push-over husband that will buy me a fancy ring and never argue with me.

    Concentrating so much energy on work and family matters requires these women to pick a man who is predictable and secure, who won't upset the apple cart by pursuing dreams and instincts of his own.
    Stop. Think. Reverse.

    Concentrating so much energy on work and family matters requires these men to pick a woman who is predictable and secure, who won't upset the apple cart by pursuing dreams and instincts of her own.

    If you think misogynistic men who find and marry women who live vicariously through her husband don't exist anymore, you are sadly mistaken.

    I hate to turn it around contantly, but the author is implying that this is somehow a recent epidemic. Women being dominant over their partners, even to an extreme extent, may very well be recent. However, it is just a reflection of how controlling individuals act, not how controlling females act. Some males act in precisely the same way as the women so despised in this article, yet women are the villains, never men.

    In fact, the article encourages men to be more dominant and controlling, which implies that having a submissive weak-willed female partner is ideal, who allows her husband to tell her to shut up and does nothing about it and who, when asked "Who's the boss" must respond "You are".

    Verbally abusive relationships are fine if men are the perpetrators, but how DARE a woman do any of that.

    And yet you don't see the misogyny, Shaun? Are you really that utterly blind?

  20. #20
    SeniorBatavianHorse's Avatar Tribunus Vacans
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    5,158

    Default Re: How feminism destroyed real men

    Bravo.

Page 1 of 10 12345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •