Lack of feminine characteristics...

Originally posted by Xiamara
I support the femminist movement. Society is controlled by men and its should be said that women should be able to act however the choose as should men. More feminine men and androgynous gender roles i think is important to society

There are no genes determining purely feminine or male characteristics. Men use to wear pink and purple as purple was a royal colour, now if a man wears purple he's labeled gay. Times change as do social norms. its natural, its a new method of thinking. There is nothing wrong with men being more feminine or women being more masculine or holding the same values. We are all the same and the sooner we learn this the sooner we can all get along.

edit on 7-3-2011 by Xiamara because: Went on ATS before my morning coffee

I could not disagree more, and you could not be more wrong.

the "graying" of society will be its downfall.

Borders, language, and culture.

A little bit more detail on my last post... In the Anglo-Saxon society of the West, women where closer to being equals with men than they are today..

IMHO that equality is the traditional role of women in our society.

A good example of the position women held can be in St Hilda (Anglo-Saxon patron saint of learning and culture) she presided over the Synod of Wihtby that was held to decide which church would be accepted into the kingdom, Rome or Ioa..

Her position was such that her advice was sought by abbots and Kings alike.

St Hilda was an abbess, and in those nuneries they debated, they taught, they translated and copied some of the manuscripts we see today, and yet even today we hold the bias that those works where all created by men.

Some of her students became Bishops, Saints and Poets... a real legacy for women

Even St Boniface sought out Saxon women to create some of his works due his repect for their skills.. works I suspect would now still be atributed to monks..

Women held a much higher place in our society... they held land, they ran businesses, they taught, they theorised, and their oponions where equally respected...and their oath, so important in Saxon life was equal to that of any man. Women where oathkeepers..

It is clear that in Saxon society women worked in ways that where equal to men as in many roles we can see evidence by both male and female varients of baker, butcher, weaver, brewer etc.

Sadly along came the Norman invasion, Cannon Law and the Gregorian reforms.. All conspired to subjugate women in the West..

Women went from having rights in law that where equal to men to becoming no more than chattle, and having to spend the last 1,000 years fighting to regain the rights they lost..

That is one long battle.. and created many deep scars that are going to take time to heal.. returning to that by adopting eastern practices is not going to help the situation at all, in fact I think it'll just make it worse.

As a male, I am not a supporter of feminism, I am a supporter of women regaining their traditional role in our society. the role of being my equal.

Originally posted by IronArm
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

That doesn't seem entirely fair to blame him for not finding a woman. How many women have said the same thing? "I can't find a good man".

I would say the same thing to a female with his complaints. I dont automatically support females simply because they are females. I am not a man hater, Ive had great male role models, I am who I am because of them, and I get along as good or better with men than I do with females. (Not because I dislike females but because my hobbies and choice of major tend to cause me to associate more with them.) Love them. But at the same token, there are individual men I really dont like and I dont mind saying so. Ditto for individual women.

And be clear, over the course of this thread, we have heard in fair detail what he wants, and about his seven lovers, and his failed relationships, what he feels women should be, blah blah blah. I think its very obvious why he is not in a happy marriage with children, and Im not apologizing for having eyes and a brain to process input with. Its because he is incredibly self centered and insecure and that isnt a pleasant package. "Its all about me and nothing makes me feel good about myself and I really dislike you for not making me happy" is a real bummer to be around.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by unityemissions
I think it's very, very obvious that the majority should fit into their culturally applicable role as whatever sex they have been born to.

And cultures are static and unchanging?

Must I answer that?! LOL

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And if they are NOT static and unchanging, what makes you think acceptable behavior for genders would be? And again, part of the problem with all the arguments going are that no one looks at what femininity was before the imposition of a very misogynistic religion upon women.

Alright, let's clear up a few things. First off, the supposed shift you talk about was nearly TWO THOUSAND years ago. So, are you honestly going to tell me that we should move back to two thousand years in our culture?! Or, are you going to tell me that the physical world is the same as it was then?! We evolved.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Because if you DO, you find that the way modern women are behaving, a tad aggressive and brash and not a til death do us part form of monogamy is very much how women were behaving BEFORE Christianity went storming around the globe. Woman are returning to their natural femininity, not deviating from it. The Christian period was the deviation from nature.

Why are you focusing around religion. It's as if you are trying to play the "religion is evil, therefore everything that originated from religion is an evil" card. It's illogical. Christianity was a "control" mechanism, mostly just from instilling cultural norms...morality.. into the majority of people. If the majority of us don't sing the same tune, chaos reigns. Search through your history books. Surely you will see this to be true.



Listen, the "feminist" movement is incredibly stupid. Like, not a tad bit, it's insanely retarded. You think that it's a-okay for a woman to work instead of staying home with their children?! Do you have any clue what this does for the children? Do you have any clue how this gives corporations a huge advantage on multiple fronts?!

I want what's best for our species. Mixing up gender roles and acting like everything is okay is idiotic.

It's easy, children who come from broken families have lower test scores, lower income, less opportunities.

You think that feminine traits aren't inherent as genetic propensities?!



I'm sorry, but that's just not true in the least.

I'm NOT putting women down, or telling them what to do, or anything of the like.

I'm telling you my opinion on how I see this issue.

Women were already our equals, then they were sold a lot of hogwash, which played on their base emotional impulses, and the con has played out ever since.

Ever seen Aaron Russo's take on the "feminist" movement?? :

Aaron Russo was an incredible man and I agree with everything he said, which is why I do not subscribe to any "movement". Women need to take the place that they have already had for centuries and not think that they need permission, legislation or spokespeople to do so.

Originally posted by unityemissions


I want what's best for our species. Mixing up gender roles and acting like everything is okay is idiotic.

The problem is, you have no idea what the baseline is. You have no idea what "feminine" is, isolated from various cultural influences.

And do note the term "various" because what it means to be feminine is not the same in every culture.

Originally posted by unityemissions
You think that feminine traits aren't inherent as genetic propensities?!

Explain your question. Dont just link together multisyllabic words that sound vaguely like you are making a point. What traits are you talking about? Are we talking "having a vagina" because hey, you are right! Vaginas are written in genes. If you are talking about personality traits, be specific. And what evidence do you have which of them are cultural and which are genetic? Are there universal "female" personality traits at all? Dont bull# me. I read several real science journals a month and I am pretty aware of the facts. Though it is always possible I missed something and I would be grateful to have someone educate me further.

Originally posted by unityemissions
Ever seen Aaron Russo's take on the "feminist" movement?? :

No, and Im not going to start now. I dont need someone to tell me what they think about the feminist movement.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Okay then, it's your choice to remain ignorant, and make mounds of assumptions about me.

No point in debating this further.

reply to post by unityemissions


If you insist. Someone I dont even knows opinion of the feminist movement doesnt really qualify as "debate" does it?

Build your own argument, with facts, or like you have chosen, back down. Submitting a video of some random guy isnt debate.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

The Christian period was the deviation from nature.

S& ...I don't totally agree with everything you say but your position and presentation have GREAT merit. Thank you. I've been avoiding these types of discussions for years, because they tend to be spiteful and I never thought they could be productive. Still don't, but realize the effort has to be made - else we'll all go backwards like Canada has done.

...The most vocal men here seem to be those who by their own admission have been disappointed in their expectations of romance and/or relationships - yet who seem quite unwilling to take personal responsibility for the repeating patterns in their personal lives. I don't understand that kind of contradiction.

It's embarrassing the amount of 'men' on this thread who are sucking up to women.

I bet those high-heel indentations on your body must be painful.

I hate to break it to you, ''guys'', but you're not going to get your legover with this 'sensitive' act.

Women like real men; manly men. Not some snivelling, 'male feminist' doormat.

reply to post by thoughtsfull

...Women held a much higher place in our society... they held land, they ran businesses, they taught, they theorised, and their oponions where equally respected...and their oath, so important in Saxon life was equal to that of any man. Women where oathkeepers..

It is clear that in Saxon society women worked in ways that where equal to men as in many roles we can see evidence by both male and female varients of baker, butcher, weaver, brewer etc.

Sadly along came the Norman invasion, Cannon Law and the Gregorian reforms.. All conspired to subjugate women in the West..

Women went from having rights in law that where equal to men to becoming no more than chattle, and having to spend the last 1,000 years fighting to regain the rights they lost..

That is one long battle.. and created many deep scars that are going to take time to heal.. returning to that by adopting eastern practices is not going to help the situation at all, in fact I think it'll just make it worse.

As a male, I am not a supporter of feminism, I am a supporter of women regaining their traditional role in our society. the role of being my equal.

Thank you so MUCH for that post.

...True, women were just "chattel" not so long ago, but I will NEVER forget my astonished disbelief when I read the definition of "woman" in Webster's 1929 dictionary:

...a wife, and in the lesser sense of human being, a person.

In a recurring dream I had as child, I was a 6'6" woman with long raven-black hair, often standing and speaking in a circle of people who were sitting and listening to me with great respect. ...Fact is, I am 5'2" and blonde - but that dream gave me confidence and expectations that are still with me, decades later.

Must be genetic.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I think thats part of the problem. Some of the women haters just dont realize what women find "manly." They mistake "being a jerk" with "being dominant." I think men who dont need to tear down women or try to make them subordinate are VERY appealing. It shows they are secure. Its confidence. Its generosity, a willingness to share power.

You can only be willing to share what you have plenty of. People hoarding power or trying to insist they are on the top of the heap......................arent.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by unityemissions

 

If you insist. Someone I dont even knows opinion of the feminist movement doesnt really qualify as "debate" does it?

Build your own argument, with facts, or like you have chosen, back down. Submitting a video of some random guy isnt debate.

Why don't you watch the video instead of making assumptions. It's not about a random person's opinion, it's about how he was personally told about how the U.S. feminist movement was contrived for purposes other than to "liberate" women. Straight from the horse's mouth!

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
It's embarrassing the amount of 'men' on this thread who are sucking up to women.

I bet those high-heel indentations on your body must be painful.

I hate to break it to you, ''guys'', but you're not going to get your legover with this 'sensitive' act.

Women like real men; manly men. Not some snivelling, 'male feminist' doormat.

What's a manly man??? An unemotional, detached, a-hole?

I like my men rugged and strong, but NOT emotionally inept.

reply to post by kalamatas


I googled him. He is a film producer. Not an anthropologist. Not a historian. Not a biologist. Not a neuroscientist. Not a ton of things that might make me consider the rest of UnityEmissions argument differently.

He is a film producer, who is offering hearsay evidence, according to you, (what someone told me is hearsay....not admissible as evidence pretty much anywhere) about the feminist movement here in the US.

Im not arguing that. The gender and race wars may very well have been started at that particular time to destabilize society. That says nothing about whether or not the racism and sexism were valid culturally accepted practices to begin with.

Edit to add,

One technique for bolstering a losing argument you might be managing, is to derail the topic by introducing another topic that you can support more readily. If you reread the posts between Unity and I, you will see we were discussing what natural femininity is, and how the "traditional" men could be sure they were arguing for a return to a truly "natural" femininity or if, because of more than a thousand years of enforced Christianity, what they were using as a baseline itself were the unnatural version of femininity.

I might even be on his side in terms of an argument that the race and gender wars were set ablaze in the 60's to destabilize society. I think a lot of what was going on in that time frame was deliberate destabilization, because at that time is when corporations really began their takeover of our government.

BUT just because those topics were deliberately inflamed at that time for nefarious purpose, doesnt mean that the oppression of "colored" people and women were ever natural or ok to begin with.

Those are two entirely different topics, and I dont apologize for not wanting to fall for a red herring designed to lead me off my topic.

Unity left the debate because he had nothing, and I didnt want to change to a topic he could win. Its all chess.

Originally posted by irsuccubus
Aaron Russo was an incredible man and I agree with everything he said, which is why I do not subscribe to any "movement". Women need to take the place that they have already had for centuries and not think that they need permission, legislation or spokespeople to do so.

Oh Please!!!! Did you live it? Well I did.

Again - - a man - - deciding the "real" reason women want to be an independent person.

What a joke.

reply to post by Yeah-Alright

I like to think of females simply as people like everyone, since that's what they are, and as such, they are entitled to be whoever and whatever they want.

You get a lot of bitter guys hating on women because they don't feel they get the women they deserve. There are some real goddesses out there but they're not going to fall for you just because you're 'not bad' or a 'pretty nice guy'.
There's always going to be a smarter, stronger, faster, more charming man than you out there and it's not a womans job, especially a perfect womans job, to see your 'potential'. You have to live your potential, you have to keep fit and strong, challenge yourself and be able to provide them with whatever they need to be the healthy, happy wife and mother of your children that you're looking for and demonstrate that you're willing and able to do ANYTHING for them.
If you're not grabbing the interest of amazing women ask yourself what you're doing to set yourself apart from other men? I'm training to climb everest and take a rock with a very special girls name carved on it to the summit - You should be too.

reply to post by unityemissions


I don't know much about Russo but will do a bit of research. In response to the idea that the CIA ran the feminist movement:

I have NO DOUBT that TPTB hijacked, appropriated and subverted the women's movement. ANY movement of any consequence is dealt with similarly by the official social engineers - and they've been at it a very long time. ...We saw it with Christianity, and the establishment of an institutionalized religious bureaucracy. We saw it with the monarchies, and fiefdoms, with Noriega and Gaddafi. It's a given. ...These guys always have someone fronting for them - and they're not stupid - so they tend to take over already-established movements. It's just efficient. And you're right - their agenda does tend to define the "revolution" forever after, or until it's destroyed, or until the next revolution. But not completely. Fact is, people are individuals and while many toe the party line, do what they're told and think what they're told, not all do. And thus are revolutions, and movements, regenerated.

All I can say is - don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Whatever it's called, the women's movement is important. Just because TPTB try and takeover everything and everyone that might lend them credibility and power doesn't mean the movement has no merit at its core.

btw - I don't agree with much you have to say. Love you anyway.

reply to post by Arkady


Thats actually another very interesting topic.

Some academics have suggested that men are very dissatisfied with the women they are able to actually "get with" because of the way the brain averages images.

Because female images in media, porn, video games, etc., are very prolific, and because these images are often the top .01% of all females in terms of beauty, men in their minds calculate unconsciously a much more attractive "average" female. So a woman who is really a 10, to them begins to look like a 5. Note that with airbrushing and other manipulation of images, even the worlds most beautiful women are not beautiful enough.

Male images are not as skewed yet. More normal looking men are seen on TV, and so there isnt similar pressure for men to feel THEY are subpar. So you get all these 5 males thinking they deserve 10 females because the barrage of images has convinced them that a 10 female is really a 5.

And of course when they are rightly brushed off by women waaaay above their natural level, they become resentful, and blame it on the female, when in fact, the fault lies with them for not sticking within their natural breeding pool.

(Most people are most successful and happy when they date and marry people who are similar on the looks scale to themselves.)