Men Taking Classes to Unlearn Toxic Masculinity From Rape Crisis Center, Collective Action for Safe

originally posted by: ketsuko
Women are just as likely to do that as men these days. We're all liberated now and it empowers as all don't you know?

Blame the hook up culture as much as any kind of masculinity.

I do. I don't think favorably of women who do it either.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Ummm, right.

So explain to me why my son instantly gravitated toward Monster Trucks when we put him down and set him loose in the toy department as a kid. We did not guide where we went. We agreed we'd let him guide us as a toddler.

He went straight to cars, trucks, and building sets. The only thing outside that was a toy shopping cart likely because he sees daddy pushing the cart most times when we shop.

But husband isn't even into cars or trucks. Son picked those all on his own.

Did he even know what a monster truck was as a toddler? Maybe those toys used colors you had already programmed him to identify with. For example the habit we have of putting boys in blue and girls in pink/red.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Aazadan

So its society as a whole enforcing or supporting traditional gender roles , or stereotypical gender roles which lie in the negative side of their impact on everyone.

I dont know why they had to brand it toxic masculinity , when asshole or # is a perfectly good enough word for them

No. People don't evolve into traditional gender roles without outside influence.

Bull.

Men are stronger, therefore make better hunters. Women have natural, maternal drives that make then natural mothers and caregivers. Don't believe me? Ask any 99% of women in their 30s who haven't had children if they feel a drive to have them. It's not simply a want, it's a driving need.

It's part of our makeup, and nothing to be ashamed of or distance ourselves from. Without these natural drives, we wouldn't have survived as a species.

Do you think somehow, at some point in our evolution we 'decided ' to assign roles to the particular genders? Of course not, we simply did what was natural and fell into our roles as nature intended.

originally posted by: nightbringr
Men are stronger, therefore make better hunters. Women have natural, maternal drives that make then natural mothers and caregivers. Don't believe me? Ask any 99% of women in their 30s who haven't had children if they feel a drive to have them. It's not simply a want, it's a driving need.

What does strength have to do with hunting? You don't need much strength to use a gun, didn't need much for a bow, and historically a weapon like an atlatl would require very little. The real reason men would go out to hunt, or to fight is that women were considered more valuable due to the ability to actually birth a child, so they were kept more protected. Men are disposable, so they perform higher risk activities. A population that's 10% men and 90% women is viable, a population that's 90% men and 10% women is not.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: CromCruachh

Sounds like he is a rapist who is looking for something to blame. Like all men.

Sounds like he is a rapist looking for an excuse, the like all men bit is very much like something assange said recently, when someone pointed out a real man wouldnt hide in a cupboard when accused of rape he put his snowflake hat on too.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: EternalShadow
Men don't want overly driven, fire breathing, dragon ladies hell bent on usurping their roles as fathers and heads of households, because their "goals" as women have been sabotaged by an established belief that you are beneath men so you must at ALL COST prove that you are not...and MOST men tolerate that...

That's not what I want at all.

I don't want someone interested in being domestic, or pumping out children, or motherly. I want someone career minded, capable of actually making sacrifices like putting a relationship second, intelligent, cold, and with zero need for dependency.

It sounds to me like you just want 1950's gender roles.

It sounds to me like you have long stretches of being single.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nightbringr
Men are stronger, therefore make better hunters. Women have natural, maternal drives that make then natural mothers and caregivers. Don't believe me? Ask any 99% of women in their 30s who haven't had children if they feel a drive to have them. It's not simply a want, it's a driving need.

What does strength have to do with hunting? You don't need much strength to use a gun, didn't need much for a bow, and historically a weapon like an atlatl would require very little. The real reason men would go out to hunt, or to fight is that women were considered more valuable due to the ability to actually birth a child, so they were kept more protected. Men are disposable, so they perform higher risk activities. A population that's 10% men and 90% women is viable, a population that's 90% men and 10% women is not.

In the days before gunpowder, strength mattered. But let's assume you are 100% correct.

My point still stands perfectly. Women birthed children, so stayed close to home to protect and see to the needs of the child. The men hunted, and eventually farmed or set up shop. I ask again: at which point in our history did we consciously decide to divvy up duties according to gender? Never, we did what naturally made sense.

Your whole point was we didn't evolve into gender specific roles without 'outside influence '. Care to elaborate on that? My point is it happened naturally, which you seem to agree with on your last post.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: EternalShadow
Men don't want overly driven, fire breathing, dragon ladies hell bent on usurping their roles as fathers and heads of households, because their "goals" as women have been sabotaged by an established belief that you are beneath men so you must at ALL COST prove that you are not...and MOST men tolerate that...

That's not what I want at all.

I don't want someone interested in being domestic, or pumping out children, or motherly. I want someone career minded, capable of actually making sacrifices like putting a relationship second, intelligent, cold, and with zero need for dependency.

It sounds to me like you just want 1950's gender roles.

So you want a robot.

Don't worry, they are starting to make realistic robots and in a decade or two you will have your cold, career minded not that depends on you for nothing.

Sounds horrible. I like a caring, affectionate partner, but hey, that's just me.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
It sounds to me like you have long stretches of being single.

Yes and no. Single now, been single all my life really. But I've never really looked for a relationship either, and not for lack of opportunity. I've simply had other priorities in my life. Life is about what you do, not who you're with. I've always been the sort who didn't want to distract myself from life. Drugs, drinking, trivialities... these are things you do to distract from life. People fall in the same category.

originally posted by: nightbringr
Your whole point was we didn't evolve into gender specific roles without 'outside influence '. Care to elaborate on that? My point is it happened naturally, which you seem to agree with on your last post.

My point is that gender roles don't make sense. We claim that people can do anything in the US. We shouldn't have a culture that encourages them into a predefined role. Every woman who becomes a homemaker because society has brainwashed her into thinking that's what she should be doing, is one more victim.

Every man who thinks he needs to go hook up with someone, start a family, and support them, at the cost of reaching their maximum potential is also a victim.

originally posted by: Aazadan
What does strength have to do with hunting? You don't need much strength to use a gun, didn't need much for a bow, and historically a weapon like an atlatl would require very little. The real reason men would go out to hunt, or to fight is that women were considered more valuable due to the ability to actually birth a child, so they were kept more protected. Men are disposable, so they perform higher risk activities. A population that's 10% men and 90% women is viable, a population that's 90% men and 10% women is not.

You're right. Human males are not built strong to hunt. At the time we evolved there were plenty of nasty predators out there that could easily tear us to shreds. The reason men are strong but not super-strong like apes is that human males only need to be strong enough to dominate and breed with human females regardless of their willingness to do so.

a reply to: Blue Shift

So why should we be beholden to what nature says?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nightbringr
Men are stronger, therefore make better hunters. Women have natural, maternal drives that make then natural mothers and caregivers. Don't believe me? Ask any 99% of women in their 30s who haven't had children if they feel a drive to have them. It's not simply a want, it's a driving need.

What does strength have to do with hunting? You don't need much strength to use a gun, didn't need much for a bow, and historically a weapon like an atlatl would require very little..

Huh have you ever actually drawn a bow?

a longbow is a difficult draw, and holding it for the perfect moment is not the easiest thing to do.

Have you ever gotten a pig or a deer suspended from a tree to skin and gut it?

ever packed an elk out to the weigh station down 3 thousand feet of elevation then several miles to the road?

Tell me again how strength has nothing to do with hunting.

Can women hunt certainly,some can but some will never have the upper body strength to do it successfully on a regular basis.

ETA: I have known more than a few guys that were not capable of hunting due to either str or constitution.

a reply to: Aazadan

A relationship second? Then why bother, at all?

Relationships are partnerships. Ideally my strengths correspond to her weaknesses, and the other way 'round.

Intelligent, I'll go along with that. Cold? Gotta say, that's rather a strange want/need in a relationship--though if you need a built in excuse to bail, I suppose that would work.

What career? There's something wrong with being a mom, or even a dad of the stay at home variety?

originally posted by: Aazadan
So why should we be beholden to what nature says?

Don't have to. Why not try not eating for a month or so. See what nature says about that.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Aazadan

A relationship second? Then why bother, at all?

Relationships are partnerships. Ideally my strengths correspond to her weaknesses, and the other way 'round.

Intelligent, I'll go along with that. Cold? Gotta say, that's rather a strange want/need in a relationship--though if you need a built in excuse to bail, I suppose that would work.

What career? There's something wrong with being a mom, or even a dad of the stay at home variety?

Yeah, I agree with you. That sounds like a really sociopathic relationship to me.

Wow.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I don't know many guys that could pack an elk out 3000 ft down, and several miles. Not sure I could, even before I hit the shady side of 50... That there'd be some work!!

Men and women are different. Viva la difference, says I.

originally posted by: seagull
A relationship second? Then why bother, at all?

Second is being generous, I would actually rank it lower than that. I don't want to put a wife/girlfriend/family before society, I expect the same in return. Anyone I would consider attractive would be able to make the same decision.

Cold? Gotta say, that's rather a strange want/need in a relationship--though if you need a built in excuse to bail, I suppose that would work.

Maybe not the right word. I don't want someone overly sentimental or clingy. I also don't want someone who would put me before any pressing need society might have.

What career? There's something wrong with being a mom, or even a dad of the stay at home variety?

Yes. It means that person isn't reaching their potential.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Yeah, I agree with you. That sounds like a really sociopathic relationship to me.

Not really, it's probably a bit warped because that's the types of relationships my parents had... but whatever, the normal relationship people strive for looks to me the same way this looks to you.

originally posted by: Aazadan
[...] the normal relationship people strive for looks to me the same way this looks to you.

Those stinking hippies fought pretty hard to make people see that "normal" is a stupid way to judge how human beings act. I sometimes feel that a huge number of people's lives have been ruined trying to achieve those "mom and dad with kids in a house baking cookies," or "silver-haired couple dressed in white and bicycling on a beach" advertising images.

Live it, or live with it.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I think we encourage people to settle down too much.