tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post259973087451810384..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: A Real Man or a FakeStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-32629229518228557152016-08-08T06:04:49.211-07:002016-08-08T06:04:49.211-07:00http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/201...http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/08/americas-lost-boys<br /><br />On the whole a pretty solid commentary on young men in this country. The first few comments are excellent, but as it proceeds it becomes more and more about women and feminism. One has to go back to the article to ascertain what and who it was about. Who knows whether a man is real or fake when every question redounds to women at the expense of men?<br />"sesamibi" does make a valid point though rather indelicately. Hillary's main proposition is that she is a woman and will put women in positions of power and the world will be a better place. Too bad her prior actions have disproved that conjecture.<br />Why would we as a society spend so much time asking the question. "What do women want?" if we actually cared about men or young boys?<br />What I fear is that so many young men will be lost to a virtual world that the society dies a slow death and many of those men will be replaced by men who do not hold the values that made this country what it has up until this current generation. There is a reason why so many young women are unhappy?Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14962996070458991675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-22661951383640811092016-08-07T15:42:20.662-07:002016-08-07T15:42:20.662-07:00"A culture that is attempting to equalize the..."A culture that is attempting to equalize the number of men and women in executive positions . . ."<br /><br />Wrong. It is a culture that is attempting to squeeze men out of ALL executive positions. The cuntocracy marches on.sestamibihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03713681322114049960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-4883851542376538812016-08-07T15:24:04.168-07:002016-08-07T15:24:04.168-07:00I heard an interview on NPR yesterday, with Colson...I heard an interview on NPR yesterday, with Colson Whitehead author of "The Underground Railroad." He stated "I didn't stick to the facts, I stuck to the truth." which is an disturbing.Shaun Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17425084501514329529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-57776728415161537512016-08-07T15:01:24.522-07:002016-08-07T15:01:24.522-07:00Affirmative action is one of those immediate quali...Affirmative action is one of those immediate qualifiers. Is this person actually qualified for the position filled, or is this person filling a quota? Yes, it could be both, but the question still hangs over as a cloud. Sam L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00996809377798862214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-78056708626065242562016-08-07T14:01:36.885-07:002016-08-07T14:01:36.885-07:00Stuart: After all, a minimal knowledge of human na...Stuart: After all, a minimal knowledge of human nature, the kind that we often call scientific, will tell you that men are constitutionally stronger than women. There ought to be no question about it. <br /><br />Constitutionally stronger?! Is that different than "more muscular"?<br /><br />Dictionary: Constitution: the physical health and condition of a person or animal<br /><br />I don't expect Stuart is saying men are more physically healthy than women.<br /><br />A more accurate assessment I think would say that men's physiology and skills are more specialized, or have a higher potential for certain specializations. <br /><br />But outside of simple brute strength, they say men are more vulnerable to permanent brain damage from strokes, while women's brains recover better because of more redundancy. And in general there are more male geniuses and more male idiots, perhaps because of this specialization, when it goes well, or not.<br /><br />And as well, while more males are conceived, more male fetuses have spontaneous abortions, and are less developed at birth, and more die as infants, in part because all fetuses start as female, and its only the hormones at the right stage that makes a male baby.<br /><br />And once the dangers of child birth are reduced, women of all races statistically outlive men. Perhaps in part this is because men are willing to work themselves to death, but also because men take more risks, and get into more accidents in their youth.<br /><br />Myself, I'll imagine the animal kingdom and all the sexual dimorphisms, evolved to attract the opposite sex, all the otherwise wasted showmanship, and then imagine the same for humans. With all the hormones raging and sloshing around, its easy to imagine that we're often stupid not because we don't know any better, but because our hormones trick us into being stupid, because that's what allowed our ancestors to survive and propagate.<br /><br />I remember Ashley Montegu wrote a book in the 50s called "The natural superiority of women", not really to say women are superior, but to say we're all specialized in various ways, and that we should appreciate the differences and work with them.<br /><br />So I agree its a bad idea to try to "equalize" men and women in various fields, including leadership, where there are unqual interests and unequal natural ability. But where women are interested in leadership, there's no reason to assume they are more likely to fail, whether because of their constitions or lack of skill. And for ever "weakness" a woman might have coming from a feminine point of view, there's likely a "weakness" in men who aspire to leadership. <br /><br />There's no reason to assume otherwise, while I'm sure in the battle of the sexes both sideds have plenty of cherry-picked ammo to fire back when they feel threatened.Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-22656564961261305912016-08-07T09:44:41.982-07:002016-08-07T09:44:41.982-07:00Well Stuart, the origin of Ta Patriarchy has been ...Well Stuart, the origin of Ta Patriarchy has been discovered, so we can now eliminate it! The alphabet!<br /><br /> http://www.weaselzippers.us/287910-feminist-declares-the-invention-of-the-alphabet-the-root-of-sexism-misogyny-and-patriarchy/<br /><br />"Literacy has promoted the subjugation of women by men throughout all but the very recent history of the West. Misogyny and patriarchy rise and fall with the fortunes of the alphabetic written word."<br /><br />Hold on, hmm, seems that it was really the taming of fire that allowed us men to become misogynists!<br /><br />"Negative cultural consequences came with fire, too — and continue to leave an imprint. Anthropologists have speculated that inhaling smoke led to the discovery of smoking. Humans have long used fire to modify their environment and burn carbon, practices that now have us in the throes of climate change. Fire is even tied to the rise of patriarchy — by allowing men to go out hunting while women stayed behind to cook by the fire, it spawned gender norms that still exist today."<br /><br />er, I am confused, maybe a wimmin can explain for me......Leo Gnoreply@blogger.com