╌>

THE NARCISSISM OF THE ANGRY YOUNG MEN

  

Category:  History & Sociology

Via:  hallux  •  last year  •  309 comments

By:   Tom Nichols - The Atlantic

THE NARCISSISM OF THE ANGRY YOUNG MEN

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



What to do about the deadly misfits among us? First, recognize the problem.

S ome years ago , I got a call from an analyst at the  National Counterterrorism Center . After yet another gruesome mass shooting (this time, it was Dylann Roof’s attack on a Bible-study group at a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina, that killed nine and wounded one), I had written an  article  about the young men who perpetrate such crimes. I suggested that an overview of these killers showed them, in general, to be young losers who failed to mature, and whose lives revolved around various grievances, insecurities, and heroic fantasies. I called them “Lost Boys” as a nod to their arrested adolescence.

The NCTC called me because they had a working group on “countering violent extremism.” They had read my article and they, too, were interested in the problem of these otherwise-unremarkable boys and young men who, seemingly out of nowhere, lash out at society in various ways. We think you’re on to something, the analyst told me. He invited me to come down to Washington and discuss it with him and his colleagues.

The meeting was held in a classified environment so that the group’s members, representing multiple intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, could more easily share ideas and information. (I was a government employee at the time and held a clearance.) But we could have met in a busy restaurant for all it mattered—the commonalities among these young men, even across nations and cultures, are hardly a secret. They are man-boys who maintain a teenager’s sharp sense of self-absorbed grievance long after adolescence; they exhibit a combination of childish insecurity and lethally bold arrogance; they are sexually and socially insecure. Perhaps most dangerous, they go almost unnoticed until they explode. Some of them open fire on their schools or other institutions; others become Islamic radicals; yet others embrace right-wing-extremist conspiracies.

I emerged from the meeting with a lot of interesting puzzle pieces but no answers. Since then, there have been more such attacks, more bodies, more grief—but precious little progress on preventing such incidents. A few recent examples: In  2021 , a 15-year-old boy murdered four of his fellow students in his Michigan high school. In  2022 , an 18-year-old man carried out a massacre in a Texas school;  another , the same age, committed a mass murder in a grocery store in upstate New York. A 21-year-old male attacked a  Fourth of July parade  in Illinois. A 22-year-old went on a rampage at an  LBGTQ nightclub  in Colorado.

These attacks are not merely “violence” in some general sense, nor are they similar to other gun crimes classified as “mass shootings” beyond the number of victims. Drug-war shoot-outs and gang vendettas are awful, but they are better-understood problems, in both their origins and possible remedies. The Lost Boys, however, are the perpetrators of out-of-the-blue massacres of innocents. Their actions are not driven by criminal gain, but instead are meant to shock us, to make us grieve, and finally, to force us to acknowledge the miserable existence of the young men behind the triggers.

After each Lost Boy killing, Americans are engulfed in grief and anger, but eventually, we are overtaken by a sense of helplessness. Sometimes, we respond by raging at one another; we fight about gun control or mental-health funding or the role of social media as we try to fix blame and reduce a seemingly inexplicable act to something discrete and solvable. But I wonder now, as I did back in 2015, if all of these debates are focusing on the wrong problems. Yes, the country is awash in guns; yes, depression seems to be on the rise in young people; yes, extremists are using social media to fuse together atomized losers into explosive compounds. But the raw material for all of the violence is mostly a stream of lost young men.

Why is this happening? What are we missing? Guns and anomie and extremism are only facets of the problem. The real malady afflicting these men, one about which   I’ve written   much in the intervening years since that original article, is the deluge of narcissism in the modern world, especially among failed-to-launch young men whose injured grandiosity leads them to blame others for their own shortcomings and insecurities—and to seek revenge.

T he lost boys are   mostly young and male, largely middle- or working-class. Frustrated by their own social awkwardness, they are so often described as “loners” that the trope has been around from   as early as the 1980s . But these young males, no matter how “quiet,” are filled with an astonishing level of enraged resentment and entitlement about their roles as men, and they seek rationalizations for inflicting violence on a society they think has both ignored and injured them. They become what the German writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger   called   “radical losers,” unsuccessful men who feel that they have been denied their dominant role in society and who then channel their blunted male social impulses toward destruction.

And they are, above all, staggeringly narcissistic. Almost all of the recent mass killers, for example, thought they had a special mission in the world. We know this because they felt compelled to tell us so.

Indeed, to search for the killer’s manifesto is now part of the ritual of investigating a massacre, a tradition we might trace back to the Unabomber, the ur-Lost Boy   Ted Kaczynski , whose terror campaign included a demand that the press publish his 35,000-word treatise. (And yet, when he left society at 29, he wrote   in his journal : “My motive for doing what I am going to do is simply personal revenge. I do not expect to accomplish anything by it.”) There are many other examples: the Los Angeles mass killer   Christopher Dorner   left behind an 11,000-word screed in 2013;   Brenton Tarrant , who killed 51 people at two New Zealand mosques in 2019, posted a 74-page rant to the internet. ( Patrick Crusius , who murdered 23 people in El Paso in 2019, claimed to be inspired by Tarrant but managed to upload only four pages to the infamous   8chan   site.) At this point, so many such documents exist that there are scholarly   research studies   analyzing them.

Juliette Kayyem: A ‘lone-wolf’ shooter has an online pack

Many of the Lost Boys claim to represent various causes derived from a wide spectrum of sources—sexism, racism, religious bigotry, conspiracy kookery, and anti-government extremism among them. (Nor are all of these aimless young men killers: When I first examined this problem, I also identified a type of Lost Boy who convinces himself that he’s doing good, such as  Bowe Bergdahl , who thought of himself as the fictional action hero Jason Bourne when he deserted his military unit in Afghanistan in 2009, and Edward Snowden, who is the embodiment of a particular kind of nonviolent but nonetheless highly destructive  misfit .)

Narcissism is a common malady, but for the Lost Boys, it is the indispensable primer for a bomb whose core is an unstable mass of insecurities about masculine identity. This, of course, helps explain why such spectacular and ghastly acts are an almost entirely male phenomenon. Women, who are less prone to commit violence in general, are   rarely   the perpetrators of these kinds of senseless massacres. In general, they do not share the same juvenile fantasies of power and dominance that are common to adolescent boys. Nor do they tend to harbor the same resentments about sex and status that are common to all teenagers but that in the Lost Boys persist beyond adolescence and soon grow to volcanic levels.

For example, in 2014 Elliot Rodger became a kind of patron saint of “incels,” or involuntary celibates (men angry at women for not having sex with them), when he killed six people and plowed his car into several more in California before killing himself. Rodger   explicitly said   his attack was “retribution” against other men—and the women who sleep with them—for having sex while he remained a virgin. Four years later, a self-described incel who’d praised Rodger   killed 10 people in Toronto .

Lives that seem to unwind over problems related to sex or sexual identity are a persistent theme. Micah Johnson, a Black military veteran,  claimed  that he was avenging the deaths of Black people at the hands of the police when he ambushed Dallas police officers in 2016, killing five and wounding nine others. Perhaps more pertinent, though, was that Johnson was a failure as a soldier and his life had gone into free fall after he was booted from the Army for  stealing women’s underwear  from a female comrade. That same year, Omar Mateen, who had  expressed   particular animus toward homosexuals, became a mass killer when he attacked a  gay nightclub  in Florida, as did the accused recent Colorado shooter Anderson Aldrich. Aldrich’s lawyers have said that the alleged killer is nonbinary, but  some observers , including a former friend, suspect Aldrich is merely attempting to troll the LGBTQ community.

Another way these young men express their sexual insecurity is to seek heroic redemption by imagining themselves as the defenders of helpless women against sexual threats from other men. Roof, for his part, thought he was on a mission to stop Black men from   raping white women , a common racist trope in America. One of the members of a group of young Muslim men in Canada who planned to   storm the Parliament   in Ottawa in 2006 reportedly had a similar motivation, believing that NATO soldiers were raping Afghan women.

This masculine insecurity is even more striking when we consider the number of such young men who chose what we might think of as “the military cure,” by joining the armed forces in an apparent attempt to forge a more manly identity. In a society where relatively few people serve in the military, the Lost Boys are heavily overrepresented among veterans or would-be soldiers. Timothy McVeigh, who went on to become the Oklahoma City bomber, left the Army after being   rejected   for Special Forces. Dorner was a naval reserve officer; Johnson and Bergdahl went to Afghanistan. (Before he enlisted,   friends told   The Washington Post , Bergdahl had “identified with Japanese samurai warriors and medieval knights.”) Devin Kelley, who opened fire on   a Texas church , joined the Air Force.   Snowden joined the Army and tried   for a Green Beret, but washed out. The “American Taliban” traitor,   John Walker Lindh , also went overseas—but for a different army.

Jihadists, especially those radicalized in the West, are also examples of this syndrome. They join organizations that promise to create a powerful male identity, and, in some cases, to  reward them with women  as sex slaves. For all their supposed distaste for Western immorality, many of the young males who gravitate toward jihadism are avid consumers of forbidden Western delights, such as  music , alcohol,  drugs , and  pornography . (Even in middle age, Osama bin Laden had  quite a porn collection .) For these men, terrorism may be, among other things, some sort of self-purification, a way to deny their illicit desires by destroying the places and people that supposedly coax them toward perdition. (In a striking parallel, the American Robert Aaron Long—who at 21 had already been treated for sex addiction—is accused of opening fire on a string of massage parlors around Atlanta, killing eight, in an attempt, as  he told law enforcement  officers later, to eliminate the source of his “temptation.”)

Fear of women and hatred of minorities, animosity toward authority, patterns of absent or dysfunctional fathers, histories of being bullied, romance with symbols of power, conflicts of identity and sexuality—we can catalog at length the similarities among these young misfits. They are, in the main, scared and narcissistic boys, and like many boys teetering on the cusp of manhood, they are tormented by paradoxes: insecure but drenched in self-regard, fearful yet brave, full of self-doubt yet fascinated by heroism. For most males, this is a transitory part of adolescence. For the Lost Boys, it is a permanent condition, a deadly combination of stubborn immaturity and towering narcissism.

K nowing about the   common characteristics of these killers and terrorists does not shed much light on what to do to thwart them. Stricter gun laws, a good idea in general, will not stop the mass murderers already among us who live in a society saturated with easily obtained weapons. Law enforcement can infiltrate and destroy violent militias, terror cells, and other threats, but that will not prevent unstable young men from searching for causes to justify their massacres—if they even bother with such ideas.

Likewise, arguments about “ toxic masculinity ,” as tempting as they are in these cases, miss the mark. The problem of toxic masculinity is real, but the swaggering jerks and violent abusers who sometimes become a threat to their partners (and themselves) are distinct from the insecure man-boys who decide to prove their worth—or just to prove that they  exist —by committing extraordinary acts of mass murder. And, in general, toxic men are easy to spot. The Lost Boys are, by their nature, usually invisible until they strike.

Performative mass killings and large-scale terrorism are mostly post-1970s phenomena, and we can likely trace at least some of the Lost Boy problem to the rapid emergence in the past 40 years or so of a hypersexualized and yet lonelier, more atomized society. Likewise, the social institutions that once shaped and restrained the worst impulses of young men—religion, the military, schools, and even marriage itself—have gone through drastic and irrevocable changes in the same period.

Michael Carpenter: Russia is co-opting angry young men

We can lament some of those changes—I certainly do, particularly the collapse of a kind of mature sense of stoicism and self-control among men. But we cannot reverse them, not least because that would, in effect, require turning back time and unraveling years of social progress. The advances of women’s rights are especially terrifying to a certain cohort of the Lost Boys, but such progress was necessary and irrevocable, and society cannot be held hostage to the insecurities of a small group of males in arrested adolescence, no matter how dangerous they may be.

Western societies have now produced multiple generations of these young men, so we cannot hope to solve the problem by just waiting out the generational demography. (There are exceptions in the form of “lost old men,” but the two recent cases of older mass shooters in California—as well as the 64-year-old Las Vegas killer in 2017—are extremely rare  outliers .) Perhaps more alarming, at least some of these young males seem to be aging into dangerous, frustrated middle-aged men, the gun-toting cosplayers who now have the time and money to pursue their angry fantasies. (Think of this as the Lost Boys becoming  Proud Boys .)

What we can   do, however, is start talking more about the specific problem of dangerous male immaturity without falling into endless loops about gun control, public health, or “toxic masculinity.” We can, in schools and colleges, pay closer attention to the boys and young men who seem to be sliding toward darkness, perhaps with more attempts to pull them toward a community or into mentorship with older men. At the least, we should be able to find a way to engage in gentle interventions early rather than face more drastic consequences later. As Enzensberger presciently warned nearly two decades ago: “It is difficult to talk about the loser, and it is stupid not to.”

The immensity of the challenge, as I learned at that meeting in Washington years ago, is overwhelming. But we can start by redefining the basic problem and recognizing Lost Boys as a distinct phenomenon. We are not likely to stop the next mass attacker, school shooter, or terrorist, whether tomorrow or next year. If we recognize, however, that our current arguments are dead ends, we can start anew, and become more creative about finding solutions before we produce yet another generation of silent time bombs.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1  seeder  Hallux    last year

Any inane comments about Tom NIchols being a RINO slave to the Left will be excised ... or as Elizabeth I put it, "there will be an offing of heads!

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Professor Guide
1.1  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Hallux @1    10 months ago

Ouch! An offing of heads. Man, that can hurt. Do you know how difficult and painful that is?  It takes days, sometimes weeks to sew your head back on, and, if one is hysterical, it is not uncommon for the less than-skilled to sew it on backward.

I know from personal experience.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    last year

hat same year, Omar Mateen, who had   expressed    particular animus toward homosexuals, became a mass killer when he attacked a   gay nightclu

Mateen had no idea he was attacking a gay  club.  But narrative always wins. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    last year

no way for you to address the premise of the article i guess

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    last year
Mateen had no idea he was attacking a gay  club.

Of course he did.

After the shooting, the  Orlando Sentinel  and  The Palm Beach Post  reported that at least five regular customers at the  Pulse  nightclub had seen Mateen visit the venue on at least a dozen occasions. Sometimes Mateen drank in a corner by himself "and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent." [29] [87]  A witness, who recognized Mateen outside the club an hour before the shootings, told investigators that Mateen had been messaging him for about a year using a gay  dating app  called  Jack'd .
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @2.2    last year

Nope.. The narrative always get ahead of the actual facts.  The media runs wild with the rumors that fit their bias. Then  the truth comes out in the Courtroom and doesn't nearly the exposure. Then you believe things that aren't true. 

But during the trial of Omar Mateen’s widow , Noor Salman, all forensic evidence suggested that up until the moment he turned into the Pulse parking lot, Mateen had been considering other venues, rejecting them because they were more heavily guarded. I n their closing statement, government prosecutors admitted that there was no evidence to suggest that Mateen knew that Pulse was a gay club.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.2  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.1    last year
Four regular Pulse customers told The Orlando Sentinel that Mateen sometimes visited Pulse. One, Ty Smith, said he “would go over in the corner and sit and drink by himself, and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent.”

That's from your link.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.2    last year

Yes, did you not understand the context? It was listing the unsupported RUMOURS  that the media and politicians ran with. 

Read what I highlighted again. 

 n their closing statement, government prosecutors admitted that there was no evidence to suggest that Mateen knew that Pulse was a gay club.

"No evidence" means no  evidence. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.2.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.2    last year

In the days following the attack, numerous people stated that they had recognized Mateen from various gay dating Web sites and apps, but the FBI was not able to substantiate those claims through forensic examination of his phone, his computer, or online account records.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.5  pat wilson  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.4    last year
numerous people stated

for some reason

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.2.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.5    last year

Disney World was his target.

Government witnesses also testified that Mateen's target was one that appeared to be a last-minute decision. He Googled "Orlando nightclubs" and drove back and forth between Eve Orlando and Pulse before opening fire on the gay nightclub, cellphone records show.

On Monday, the defense’s computer forensics expert recreated Mateen’s movements on the night of June 11 into June 12 on Google maps, playing the exact directions Mateen would have heard pulled from his cellphone.

“He’s not searching for a particular club, just downtown Orlando nightclubs,” Connor said.

Mateen left the Disney Springs area after that Google search at 11:05 p.m. and was around the corner from Eve Orlando nightclub at 12:55 a.m. June 12, Connors said showing screenshots of what Mateen’s phone showed him that night.

Between 1:04 a.m. and 1:45 a.m. Mateen drove up and down the south downtown Orlando area on South Orange Avenue and some side streets between Pulse and Eve Orlando. When Mateen opened fire at the club at 2:02 a.m. he still had Google Maps open and was receiving directions to another unknown location that wasn’t Eve or Pulse, Connor said.

“Was it apparent that Pulse was his target?” defense attorney Charles Swift asked Connor.
“Not to me,” Connor said.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.7  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.3    last year

I guess all the witnesses that saw him various times at that club could have mistakenly identified him.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.2.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.7    last year

(CNN) -- The Pulse nightclub may not have been Omar Mateen's first choice as a place to carry out a mass shooting, but other sites he drove to the same night -- including Disney properties -- appear to have had tighter security.

According to court documents filed in US District Court on Monday, the 29-year-old security guard may have been considering other targets, and the final selection of the Pulse appears to have been made based on the lack of security -- not because it was a gay club.

These revelations and others in the defense motion outline for the first time some of the government's evidence surrounding the shooting, which it plans to use in the trial of Mateen's widow, Noor Salman.

Here's a description of Mateen's actions the night of the attack, culminating in his death:

Scouting other sites?

About 10 p.m. on June 11, 2016, Mateen went to Disney Springs, just outside Orlando. The shopping and dining complex would likely have been busy on that warm Saturday evening, with families and groups of friends walking around or waiting in line to get into some of the more popular spots.

Security camera video and police records show the outdoor venue was well secured, with several uniformed police officers walking around, the court documents said.

About two hours later, according to cell tower data investigators used to determine Mateen's path that night, he drove near Walt Disney World's Epcot. It's another popular tourist attraction for families, and was probably busy on the balmy weekend night.

Then, at 12:22 a.m. on June 12, Mateen searched Google for "downtown Orlando nightclubs." A club called EVE Orlando and the Pulse nightclub showed in the results, and he got directions from Google Maps to EVE, which bills itself as a high-end nightclub and upscale lounge. EVE features DJs and live music, and is located in a busy downtown area, close to several other clubs and restaurants.

Mateen got near EVE about 12:55 a.m. The defense says it will present evidence that EVE has substantial security at its entrance and that people are searched before they can enter.

At that time, he did another Google search for clubs in downtown Orlando. This time Mateen got directions to Pulse and arrived there between 1:12 and 1:16 a.m. He drove around the area for a while, and around 1:33 a.m. he did the same Google search and got directions again to EVE Orlando. He started to head in that direction at 1:34 a.m. but then turned around one minute later and went back to Pulse.

That club is in a less dense area of the city. Aside from a few fast-food places and a car window-tinting shop, that block of Orange Avenue is a bit more sparse.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.9  pat wilson  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.6    last year
Disney World was his target.

Then his aim really sucked.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.2.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.7    last year
nesses that saw him various times at that club could have mistakenly identified him

Sure. People never lie to the media. It's much more likely the  FBI and DOJ engaged in a  massive conspiracy to suppress evidence in order to lie about a terrorist's motive. 

If you read that NBC story and think he targeted Pulse because it was a gay club, there's really nothing I can say.  To you, the initial rumors have become like the gospel to a devout evangelist, the discussion has left the realm where it can discussed on rational terms. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.11  George  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.10    last year

To you, the initial rumors have become like the gospel to a devout evangelist

this reminds me of the low functioning mental patients who bleat, “Hands up don’t shoot” what complete bullshit that was.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.2.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.9    last year

No, unfortunately he hit people that he was aiming at.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.2.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.10    last year

Evidence is only important to some if it supports their preferred narrative and their mind isn't open to alternatives.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.14  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.10    last year
It's much more likely the  FBI and DOJ engaged in a  massive conspiracy to suppress evidence in order to lie about a terrorist's motive. 

Yah, that's ^^^ not a conspiracy theory, not at all, lol.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.15  pat wilson  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.12    last year

So his target wasn't Disney World like you said ?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.2.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.15    last year
So his target wasn't Disney World like you said ?

It was until about two hours before the shooting, but it isn't what I said, but rather the evidence presented at his wife's trial.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
2.2.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.14    last year

How did this obvious sarcasm escape you?  And what is funny about mass murder?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.18  pat wilson  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.17    last year
How did this obvious sarcasm escape you? 

I don't think Sean was being sarcastic.

And what is funny about mass murder?

My "lol" was in reference to Sean's conspiracy theory. Nothing else.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.19  pat wilson  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.2.17    last year

I think we've beaten this thread to a pulp.

Have a great night 

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.2.20  seeder  Hallux  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.19    last year

You are arguing with people who bought and sold Paul Pelosi/David Depape bullshit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @2.2.20    last year

Yup, there's no arguing with a closed mind (to the truth).

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.22  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.7    last year

All those witnesses did not mistakenly identify him, you know that Pat.

 
 
 
Scheidde
Freshman Silent
2.2.23  Scheidde   replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.3    10 months ago
Mateen had been to the club ... That right there is evidence that he knew it was a gay club ... There is no mistaking a gay club for anything else but a gay club ... He absolutely knew it was a gay club ... 
 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Professor Guide
2.3  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    10 months ago

Gay Club, Straight Club, or Twisted Sisters Club, no one has a RIGHT to attack or purchase LETHAL WEAPONS to take their built-up HATE on other people.

Of course, if the USA had sensible Gun Laws like Japan and Britain there would be less opportunity for a pissed-off, angry, nutcase to blast strangers with an AR-15, or other lethal weapon designed for WAR purposes.

Under the Second Amendment, there is NO Constitutional Right to purchase as many LETHAL weapons as one wants. 

The Second Amendment is a 27-word sentence, subtitled, "The Right to Bear Arms". It reads:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The phrase "A Well-regulated Militia" is not a bunch of ignorant-ass Hillbillies in pickup trucks loaded with an arsenal of military-style weapons drag-racing on the streets of a run-down, former Confederate town." 

It means under the supervision of the State. For example, that would be the F*&king National Guard in our time.

It is not wholesale permission for crazies with burrs up their tulkus to buy as many G-D guns as they want, for them to intimidate those who do not possess weapons, and slaughter innocent people they hate.

STUPID PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PURCHASE LETHAL WEAPONS or be let out of the house.

(In my humble by the year's opinion.)


 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @2.3    10 months ago

Argue your case to SCOTUS.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3  Drinker of the Wry    last year

I think that a common profile includes childhood trauma like home violence, parental suicide, sexual assault, extreme bullying, etc.  Social dysfunction starts creating more hopelessness, isolation, depression rejection from peers. 

They want to commit suicide but also blame others for their situation.  Classmates, some religious group, woman, different race, workmates, are to blame.  There is also a need for fame and recognition.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4  Ender    last year

Sounds about like the incels.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1  devangelical  replied to  Ender @4    last year

maga martyrs...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Ender  replied to  devangelical @4.1    last year

Ah, the M&Ms...

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
5  charger 383    last year

people having kids they can't or will not properly raise their kids are a big part of the problem

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
5.1  independent Liberal  replied to  charger 383 @5    last year

The NP disorders are often caused by a primary care taker who did not love or nurture the young child. It's really heartbreaking, they are sad, lonely people starved for attention and the narcissism is simply a social mask to hide how they really feel about themselves.

These boys grow into men and are what most of us identify as the abusers in society. I hate to break the news to the forum but politics has little to do with it as does religion. It has more to do with a child feeling unloved, overwhelmed with shame and a care taker that was disconnected and unempathetic to the needs of the child.

They are treatable but like all personality disorders its a difficult road.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  independent Liberal @5.1    10 months ago
They are treatable but like all personality disorders its a difficult road.

I have read the opposite.  

What research has shown successful treatment of narcissistic personality disorder?  Who has published this research?

What I have read is that narcissists do not seek treatment because they do not feel they have a problem, and no one will ever convince them otherwise.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.2  cjcold  replied to  charger 383 @5    10 months ago

I rebelled against my far right wing republican parents and became a hippie.

Sometimes the parents are wrong and the kids are right.

Dad was a racist and I have had many friends of 'color'.

One of the great loves of my life was a Jewish princess. Dad hated it.

Thankfully, I am a much better person than my racist father was.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.1  JBB  replied to  cjcold @5.2    10 months ago

People forget that hardcore institutional systemic racism including mandated segregation and legal discrimination were just the way things were for many Americans prior to 1964. Non-whites were not even allowed in the restaurants, stores, banks, hospitals or schools in the "White Part Of" my little town. The rest of town, on the other side of the tracks, was called, um, I better not say. It started with an N, had a hard R and ended in "Town". Lots of people knew it was wrong, but, "You cannot do business in this town is you do not play by their rules". Their rules sucked ass...

Yet, some somehow remember those days fondly and openly desire a return to that!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.2.2  cjcold  replied to  JBB @5.2.1    10 months ago

My tiny town of 700 didn't even have tracks to be on the other side of.

Learned about systemic racism with mother's milk.

Took many years to shake it off.

Never even saw a black person in person until I was a teen.

The epitome of leading a sheltered childhood.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.2.3  JBB  replied to  cjcold @5.2.2    10 months ago

By the time I was five or six I was asking adults a lot of painful questions nobody wanted to answer. My aunt told me that her restaurant was segregated because white people were so sensitive to the body odors of any non-whites and the garlic or spicy smells of immigrant that they would become sick and lose their appetites smelling them. That because of this mixing of races in restaurants was impossible. Only white persons were allowed to enter the front entrance and dine in the main dining room. All others had to enter the service entrance in the alley and dine in "The Colored Room". Which was, BTW, my favorite hangout. There was a jukebox and a piano that usually had a pretty good player at it. There were jazz performances back there on weekends after closing time...

My aunt apologized on her death bed for telling me that. She said she didn't believe it but that was a plausible excuse she had heard before. It had bothered her for fifty years and was something I had never forgotten either. Most adults would just shrug and say, "That's just the way things are", when I would ask how come blacks had to have a white man cash their checks or how come Mexican immigrant farm worker's children had to attend a makeshift school in a farm shed. "Why are you always asking me how come?"

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.2.1    10 months ago

Did they ever tell you that is the way Democrats wanted it in OK?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.2.1    10 months ago
Yet, some somehow remember those days fondly and openly desire a return to that!

Most of those old Jim Crow racist Democrats have died off by now, so, no, people aren't pining away for the Democratic Party glory days!

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.2.6  GregTx  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.5    10 months ago

There's at least one still around..

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.2.7  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.5    10 months ago
Most of those old Jim Crow racist Democrats have died off by now,

Probably so, but some of their offspring are with us....some of them right here on NT.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6  sandy-2021492    last year
Likewise, arguments about “ toxic masculinity ,” as tempting as they are in these cases, miss the mark. The problem of toxic masculinity is real, but the swaggering jerks and violent abusers who sometimes become a threat to their partners (and themselves) are distinct from the insecure man-boys who decide to prove their worth—or just to prove that they  exist —by committing extraordinary acts of mass murder. And, in general, toxic men are easy to spot. The Lost Boys are, by their nature, usually invisible until they strike.

I'm not sure I agree here.  I think toxic masculinity explains or can explain a lot of these acts.  I think it just has different manifestations - lone wolf killers, incels banding together to gripe about women who won't have sex with them and cheer those who act violently about it, men who abuse their wives and children.

Toxic masculinity causes some men to feel entitled - to sex, to jobs, to respect.  It also causes some men to feel like they're displaying weakness when they ask for help with mental health, or when they're the victims of abuse, or when they display empathy for others.  

And toxic men (and women) can be very difficult to spot.  Manipulative people know how to be charming when it suits them.  They know how to gain trust and exploit it.  The toxicity isn't always out there for the world to see.  It's often only shown to their victims, whom they have often gaslit and isolated so they're unlikely to be able to challenge the toxicity.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
6.1  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    last year
I'm not sure I agree here.  I think toxic masculinity explains or can explain a lot of these acts.

I have to disagree, to a point. I don't agree completely with the quote you included in your post, it has a grain of truth, but ends up in the wrong place, in my opinion. 

My understanding of what people consider toxic masculinity revolves around the man's image of his role in a relationship. If my understanding is correct, and at the risk of oversimplifying, the relationship is toxic because the man's primary concern in the relationship is his self-image rather than the actual relationship. The toxic male sees his partner's role as confirming the image he has of himself. If she fails to confirm that image, she pays for it. 

Concerning the lone wolf killers, as you call them, I think the motive is different. In the case of the toxic male, they operate within their perceived set of societal rules or standards of what they think is a male. In the case of the lone wolf mass killers, they become disassociated with all societal rules. Relationally, the relevant factor is that they can't relate, either on an individual level or societal. In most of the mass shootings I've read about, masculinity doesn't appear to be a factor. That is, in most cases, it simply seems to be an attack against society or a portion of it. 

And toxic men (and women) can be very difficult to spot.  Manipulative people know how to be charming when it suits them.  They know how to gain trust and exploit it.  The toxicity isn't always out there for the world to see.  It's often only shown to their victims, whom they have often gaslit and isolated so they're unlikely to be able to challenge the toxicity.

Whether or not I agree or disagree with this depends on what you mean, specifically. Toxic men or women is such a subjective term that it's really not possible to address. This is because there's no actual standards for anything anymore. Everything is so subjective that it ultimately becomes meaningless to even discuss unless a basis from which to begin is first constructed. 

I do agree that toxic people can be difficult to spot, but I think that has as much to do with those who should be doing the spotting as the ones being toxic. I can't count the number of articles I've read lately that tell you how to spot a toxic partner or how to spot a partner who's gaslighting you or some other method of one's partner taking advantage of you or if they're cheating on you or whatever. But there's almost none that talk about one's responsibility TO their partner. It seems to be that if THEY aren't giving you what you want or treating you the way you want, that's all that matters and you should move on. So, the point I'm trying to get to is, how many relationships are considered toxic simply because one partner isn't doing their part? Is it really toxic if the man says she's not giving him what he needs from her if she isn't giving it and vice versa? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @6.1    last year
In most of the mass shootings I've read about, masculinity doesn't appear to be a factor. That is, in most cases, it simply seems to be an attack against society or a portion of it. 

First, we're talking about  toxic  masculinity, not masculinity in general.

And also:

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    last year
oxic masculinity causes some men to feel entitled - to sex, to jobs, to respect.

That is the number one tell. If you meet someone who thinks they should be running shit, but is 6 months into the industry, giant fuck no. The narcissism in some people these days, me included, in incredible. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.3  cjcold  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6    10 months ago

Consider myself to be a good person (mostly).

Have known women who are much better folk than me.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.3.1  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @6.3    10 months ago

most of my favorite bosses or peers when I was working were women...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.3.2  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @6.3.1    10 months ago

My favorite boss of all time was a woman.

She wanted to give me her job when she retired.

I turned it down because I didn't like her male boss.

I retired with her instead.

We had one hell of a retirement party.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.3.3  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @6.3.2    9 months ago

just you and her?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.3.4  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @6.3.3    9 months ago

yeah, I wouldn't tell me either...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7  Jack_TX    last year

I'm not sure about RINO or whatever other nonsense, but this author obviously hasn't spent any time with boys or young men.  His judgementalism in the face of his ignorance just marks him as an asshole.  Maybe if he spent some time coaching a basketball or football team he might develop a clue.

Nobody responds well to a no-win situation.

When we send young men into a competitive environment without any sort of idea about how to generate any success whatsoever, it goes badly.  Yes, they blame other people.  And they are correct in doing so. 

If the people who raised you had 18 years to prepare you to take an exam that would determine the path of the rest of your life, but failed to tell you it was coming and refused to equip you for it in any way, shape, or form ......you'd be pretty pissed.   You would blame them, and you would not be wrong.

Then, when the people who give the exam utterly and knowingly misrepresent the criteria for passing, you would become angrier.  You would blame them also, and again... you would not be wrong.  You then see these same people refer to your competitors as "toxic"....while simultaneously rewarding them for the very behaviors they condemn.  It's enough to make people very angry.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
7.1  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Jack_TX @7    last year
this author obviously hasn't spent any time with boys or young men.

Au contraire, Nichols has spent many years teaching and has received a number of awards .

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7    last year

What necessary skills, specifically, do you think we're not giving young men?

When we send young men into a competitive environment

Perhaps we or the young men in question are making the mistake of inventing competition where there doesn't need to be any.  Many situations are better addressed by cooperation rather than competition.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2    last year
What necessary skills, specifically, do you think we're not giving young men?

That's probably too long a list for this forum.  

But for this discussion, we can narrow it down to the skills young men need to attract young women.

Perhaps we or the young men in question are making the mistake of inventing competition where there doesn't need to be any.  Many situations are better addressed by cooperation rather than competition.

That's such a fantastic example of the mindset that undermines these boys I can't tell if you're being ironic or serious.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.1    last year
That's such a fantastic example of the mindset that undermines these boys I can't tell if you're being ironic or serious.

it results from an ideological concept of reality rather than a factual one. It reveals a complete lack of understanding of human nature and, instead, a groundless fantasy. In other words, she's being serious. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.1    last year
the skills young men need to attract young women.

I'm honestly not sure what those skills would be, other than perhaps grooming and dressing well.  Conversational skills, maybe.  Women will usually be attracted to a decent-looking man who pays a bit of attention to his appearance and who has a pleasant personality.

That's such a fantastic example of the mindset that undermines these boys I can't tell if you're being ironic or serious.

I really can't imagine why you'd say this.  There are times for competition, and times for cooperation.  That seems like a very reasonable position to me.  Sports or looking for a job - competitive.  Running a household, raising kids, getting the actual job you have done with a team at work, bettering one's community - cooperative.  I really can't see how that's undermining young men at all.  Can you be more specific?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.2    last year
That's such a fantastic example of the mindset that undermines these boys I can't tell if you're being ironic or serious.

Ah, there's the ad hom.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.5  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.4    last year

Since that isn't a quote from me, why do you address this to me as if it were? Not that I disagree with it, but wouldn't it make more sense to address something I said rather than what someone else said? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.5    last year

Sorry, the wrong quote was on my clipboard.  Here's where you engaged in ad hom, although I really shouldn't have to explain to you when you're being insulting, since insulting was evidently your intention.

it results from an ideological concept of reality rather than a factual one. It reveals a complete lack of understanding of human nature and, instead, a groundless fantasy. In other words, she's being serious. 
 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.7  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.3    last year
I really can't imagine why you'd say this.  There are times for competition, and times for cooperation.  That seems like a very reasonable position to me.  Sports or looking for a job - competitive.  Running a household, raising kids, getting the actual job you have done with a team at work, bettering one's community - cooperative.  I really can't see how that's undermining young men at all.  Can you be more specific?

I don't know what Jack will respond with but I know what I would. For males, competition is the basis of life. We are born to fight, battle and compete. It is our nature. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the most toxic masculine man ever or the most subservient, milk toast man. Everything a man does is in order to fight for some goal. 

And almost all of that competition, all that effort, is for the purpose of being accepted by a female in some way. To be validated by a female. 

Of course, it's more complicated than that. There's tons of factors that play into this. But if reduced to its most elementary level, that's what it's about. Everything else, like the cooperation you mention, proceeds from that. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.8  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.6    last year
Sorry, the wrong quote was on my clipboard.  Here's where you engaged in ad hom, although I really shouldn't have to explain to you when you're being insulting, since insulting was evidently your intention.

Insult was not my intention. Of course, you're going to believe what you will. I said what I did because I believe it is true, not because I had insulting you as a goal. If insulting people was my goal, I'd follow tessylo around constantly. Instead, I almost never reply to her. Shouldn't that tell you something? 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.8    last year

Drakk, in what world do you think "she lives in a fantasy world and doesn't know anything about human nature" isn't  an insult?  Not buying the bullshit.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.7    last year

Excuses.

Men can cooperate. We see this in team sports, group projects, community development, military service, etc.

The idea that men can't behave in any manner other than competitive is the very foundation of toxic masculinity, and sells men short. It implies that they can't be rational about when a competitive mindset is necessary, and when it's not.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.10    last year

The people you are arguing with here are self professed Christians. I went to catholic school for 12 years (which means 12 years of religion classes) and I dont recall anything in any of those lessons about Jesus being competitive. But then again maybe he wasnt really a man. 

When someone is competitive all the time they cant relax. , thus all the tension, aggression and violence. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.12  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.9    last year
Drakk, in what world do you think "she lives in a fantasy world and doesn't know anything about human nature" isn't  an insult?

Because it was literal, not figurative. I don't think you understand the reality of what we are speaking of. Further, it wasn't said to get under your skin. That you find it an insult is unfortunate but, likely, inevitable, I suppose, given what I think your view of reality is. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.12    last year

Drakk, the defense that "it wasn't an insult because it's true" doesn't fly, and is also based on your very biased interpretations. Also, insulting me, trying unsuccessfully to gaslight me about insulting me, and doubling down on insulting me are extremely un-Christlike actions.

In this context, however, it has been an excellent illustration of toxic masculinity.  So thanks for that contribution to the discussion.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.14  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.11    last year

b06974253e150445abcee6f213acfd10.jpg

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.15  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.14    last year

Probably Jesus most well known teaching. 

Dont see anything in there that relates to hyper competitiveness. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.2.16  evilone  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.10    last year
The idea that men can't behave in any manner other than competitive is the very foundation of toxic masculinity, and sells men short. It implies that they can't be rational about when a competitive mindset is necessary, and when it's not.

I guess, maybe, some men don't have the self control of a leg humping dog. I would bet, though, humanity has progressed out of the stone age as far as we have in spite of toxic competitiveness, not because of it. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.17  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.10    last year
Men can cooperate. We see this in team sports, group projects, community development, military service, etc.

Of course we can. Look at the members of special forces teams, pretty much the apex Alpha male predators of the human species. Basically, violence in a bottle, yet it isn't chaotic. Isn't random or purposeless. Hell, most of the time it isn't even expressed as violence. it is restrained for the purpose of what you should consider cooperation. These are highly skilled and very dangerous, competitive men who always have a completive mindset but understand not that it isn't always necessary but, rather, how to channel it. 

The idea that men can't behave in any manner other than competitive is the very foundation of toxic masculinity, and sells men short.

At the risk of being "insulting" again, you don't know the nature of men. Do you know why movies like Die Hard or John Wick are so popular, both among men and women? How many movies do you know of that sing the praises of actuaries or make women weak in the knees at the thought of such? Women are turned on by absolute bad asses. 

Males being aggressive or competitive is not toxic. It is the method in which they express such that can be toxic. The happiest woman is one that knows she's married to an absolute monster that channels their monstrosity for the good herself and her children first, and the good of her society. A man who is capable of extreme violence but has rock solid principles she can depend on. In other words, a monster that channels their monstrosity for cooperation. 

Contrast that with the same sorts of monsters that don't subject themselves to the same sort of principles. Wife beaters, drug lords and related criminals. It isn't that males are competitive that makes them toxic. It's what they do with it that does. 

It implies that they can't be rational about when a competitive mindset is necessary, and when it's not.

Sometimes. Obviously, there are narcissistic men whose only concern is their image of themselves.  But make no mistake, even a man who's representing  a humanitarian non-profit addressing some board of a company is doing the same thing as a SEAL team does, only on a different level. While the SEAL team member trains in the art of physical violence, the charity worker trains in the art of convincing others to contribute. Both are a competition. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.18  Drakkonis  replied to  evilone @7.2.16    last year
I guess, maybe, some men don't have the self control of a leg humping dog. I would bet, though, humanity has progressed out of the stone age as far as we have in spite of toxic competitiveness, not because of it.

The sheer stupidity of this statement is astounding! Do you not have access to news? If you do, what makes you think humans have progressed even the slightest bit over those of recorded history? Every single evil that beset them then besets us now. So what the hell are you talking about? If that is unclear to you, humans today are exactly the same as humans of the past. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.19  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.15    last year
Probably Jesus most well known teaching.  Dont see anything in there that relates to hyper competitiveness. 

Of course you don't. It completely escapes you that even though Jesus said these things, he willingly died for them. Do you not get that? He stood against the accepted ''wisdom" of his day and died for it. How much more competitive can you get? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.20  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.10    last year
Excuses

"Mansplaining'.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.21  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @7.2.20    last year
"Mansplaining'.

A header under which anything a male says can be dismissed. Brilliant. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.2.22  evilone  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.17    last year
At the risk of being "insulting" again...

Risk? Your posts ooze with it. Furthermore you insult yourself if you think we buy your kitchen table pop phycology babble. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.23  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.21    last year

You do not speak for all men, no matter how long your post is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @7.2.23    last year
You do not speak for all men

That would be a brilliant argument had he actually claimed he did!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.19    last year

LOL. You now sound like you are rationalizing your own position. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.26  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.24    last year

Says the one that never even has an argument...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.27  JohnRussell  replied to  Ender @7.2.26    last year

Some people cant be expected to work too hard. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.2.28  evilone  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.18    last year
If you do, what makes you think humans have progressed even the slightest bit over those of recorded history?

I don't know what cave system you live in, but let us all know so we can avoid it. I like indoor plumbing, access to advanced medicine and wifi. 

If that is unclear to you, humans today are exactly the same as humans of the past. 

As science continues to uncover, humans have always had an unlimited potential for compassion, learning and socializing. We are finding art far further than we previously knew where human gathered to trade and pass along knowledge of farming and astronomy. It's where we developed language, art and religion and mathematics. Sure we also have an almost unlimited potential for violence, but violence by it's very nature is anti-social.

Every single evil that beset them then besets us now.

Doesn't your religion command you to cast aside any baser impulses to love and accept your fellow man? hmmmm... I'm sure there's a truth there beyond the scope of this article thread.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.29  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @7.2.26    last year
Says the one that never even has an argument...

Just pointing out how you are inventing things and then trying to argue them as if someone other than you had actually made the statement.

I see it pretty often here, it is easy to identify as a dodge or deflection.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.30  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.29    last year

You pointed out nothing other than my opinion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @7.2.30    last year
You pointed out nothing other than my opinion

So deal with it then, instead of asking questions or making statements that assign words to others.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.32  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.31    last year

If he felt my opinion was wrong he could say so.

You on the other hand STILL have not offered anything.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @7.2.32    last year

I offered up the same as you, an opinion!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.34  Drakkonis  replied to  evilone @7.2.28    last year
I don't know what cave system you live in, but let us all know so we can avoid it. I like indoor plumbing, access to advanced medicine and wifi.

Predictable. You think that because tech has advanced that humans have? 

As science continues to uncover, humans have always had an unlimited potential for compassion, learning and socializing. We are finding art far further than we previously knew where human gathered to trade and pass along knowledge of farming and astronomy. It's where we developed language, art and religion and mathematics. Sure we also have an almost unlimited potential for violence, but violence by it's very nature is anti-social.

Um, apparently, you don't seem to understand that everything you've said here simply defends what I said. We are the same today as we ever were.

Doesn't your religion command you to cast aside any baser impulses to love and accept your fellow man? hmmmm... I'm sure there's a truth there beyond the scope of this article thread.

Sorry, but you wouldn't understand any answer I gave to this. Especially since you aren't actually asking a question but, rather, a statement posed as a question that I am not adhering to your idea of what you think my religion is. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.35  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @7.2.23    last year
You do not speak for all men, no matter how long your post is.

Texan is absolutely correct. You may have as well said something equally inane as "not all men are as tall (or short) as you." You take Texan to task for offering nothing when you've offered nothing yourself. Good job. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.36  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.25    last year
LOL. You now sound like you are rationalizing your own position.

Okay. Let's assume, John, that you've caught me in a teachable moment. Tell me the difference between rationalizing and explaining what's behind what I think. If that's unclear to you, what differentiates what anyone says from rationalization as opposed to what isn't rationalization in your book? 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.2.37  evilone  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.34    last year
Predictable. 

You, being consistently proven wrong every time is becoming predictable, yes.

You think that because tech has advanced that humans have? 

All tech advances have been the success of advanced socialization, teams of people talking, working, testing, educating. I guess it's possible one guy, on his own might have build a rocket, landed on the moon and came back. It didn't happen for the flat earther Mike Hughs, he died when he crashed... NOPE I'm gonna say not probable. ALL communities and societies do better and accomplish more when we set ego aside and work together.

Um, apparently, you don't seem to understand that everything you've said here simply defends what I said

I understand, what you miss is that -

We are the same today as we ever were.

doesn't mean what you think it means.

Sorry, but you wouldn't understand any answer I gave to this.

I wouldn't believe any of your bullshit, we've already established this much.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.38  Drakkonis  replied to  evilone @7.2.22    last year
Furthermore you insult yourself if you think we buy your kitchen table pop phycology babble. 

I assure you that I have not "insulted' myself for such reasons. I have not the slightest illusion that you guys will wake the hell up and face reality. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.39  Texan1211  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.34    last year
Especially since you aren't actually asking a question but, rather, a statement posed as a question that I am not adhering to your idea of what you think my religion is. 

That seems to be a rather common practice here, usually by people who don't believe in God.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.40  Drakkonis  replied to  evilone @7.2.37    last year
You, being consistently proven wrong every time is becoming predictable, yes.

Apparently, that portion of the conversation isn't showing up on my screen. 

All tech advances have been the success of advanced socialization, teams of people talking, working, testing, educating. I guess it's possible one guy, on his own might have build a rocket, landed on the moon and came back. It didn't happen for the flat earther Mike Hughs, he died when he crashed... NOPE I'm gonna say not probable. ALL communities and societies do better and accomplish more when we set ego aside and work together.

So, sticking with the "tech proves humans are different than they were" meme? Great! Then you should be able to explain how crimes from six thousand years ago no longer exist today because humans have evolved beyond such things. I fully admit I'm ignorant as to what these things could be but, hey, this is your chance to educate me. Go for it. 

The rest of your post is meaningless. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.41  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.12    last year

Yeah, that's not insulting at all.  jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.42  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.21    last year

Yet you dismiss everyone with your insults and your arrogance and pompousness.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.43  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @7.2.23    last year

So many words to say so little.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.44  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.36    last year
Do you not get that? He stood against the accepted ''wisdom" of his day and died for it. How much more competitive can you get?

I reject your conclusion that Jesus dying for mankind was competitive. Calling it "competitive" is your rationalization. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.45  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.38    last year

When will you wake the hell up and face reality?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.46  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.40    last year

You just said that you were ignorant, I heartily agree.  First thing you said that's true or makes sense.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.47  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.38    last year

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.48  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.35    last year

Guess what, I will be more direct. You do not speak for me as a man.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.49  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.38    last year
that you guys will wake the hell up and face reality

And exactly what reality is that?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.50  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.44    last year
I reject your conclusion that Jesus dying for mankind was competitive.

Um, okay?

Calling it "competitive" is your rationalization. 

Again, okay? What would you call challenging the norms of society to the point of death? What would you call standing  your ground in spite of the knowledge that doing so would kill you? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.51  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @7.2.48    last year
Guess what, I will be more direct. You do not speak for me as a man.

Guess what? Since you seem to think it necessary for me to state, I never said anything remotely like "Ender thinks (whatever). Texan already made this clear, yet you ignored it. I suppose you'll ignore my direct response as well.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.52  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @7.2.49    last year
And exactly what reality is that?

Already stated. Restating it isn't going to accomplish anything. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
7.2.53  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.15    last year

People have no problem citing Jesus with words He never said.

Of course, people do the same with everyone... but when they misquote John Doe, they're not taking the name of the Lord in vain.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.2.54  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.50    last year

I know that you believe that Jesus is God incarnate. Who does God compete with? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.55  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.54    last year
Who does God compete with? 

Sorry. I'm not stupid enough to not recognize what you're trying to do here. Get back to me when you have a serious question. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.56  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.7    last year
For males, competition is the basis of life. We are born to fight, battle and compete. It is our nature.

Generally a true statement IMO.    But clearly a drive that is tempered by nuance (situations, body chemistry, experiences, genetics, ...).

You are arguing with Sandy as if her notion of cooperation by males is incompatible with natural male competitiveness.   What she wrote is perfectly sensible (and I find it quite correct):

Sandy @7.2.3There are times for competition, and times for cooperation.  That seems like a very reasonable position to me.  Sports or looking for a job - competitive.  Running a household, raising kids, getting the actual job you have done with a team at work, bettering one's community - cooperative.  I really can't see how that's undermining young men at all. 

I see later in this thread you come back and effectively agree that men are quite capable of cooperating under the right conditions.   A fine example would be a platoon on a mission.   Sports like football demonstrate that teams which dial up competitiveness AND cooperation tend to win.

To wit:  males are indeed inherently competitive (my opinion).   But we (mostly) are able to moderate/manage our natural tendencies in order to achieve higher goals.   And it thus makes sense that society provide circumstances where both competitive and cooperative skills are learned.

Your comment came off (as I read it) to imply that Sandy (as a woman) cannot be correct about even observable properties of males because she is not male.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.17    last year
Of course we can. Look at the members of special forces teams, pretty much the apex Alpha male predators of the human species. Basically, violence in a bottle, yet it isn't chaotic. Isn't random or purposeless. Hell, most of the time it isn't even expressed as violence. it is restrained for the purpose of what you should consider cooperation. These are highly skilled and very dangerous, competitive men who always have a completive mindset but understand not that it isn't always necessary but, rather, how to channel it. 

So, basically, you agree with me, but are still arguing.  That seems to me to represent a need to compete when competition isn't necessary.

Do you know why movies like Die Hard or John Wick are so popular, both among men and women? How many movies do you know of that sing the praises of actuaries or make women weak in the knees at the thought of such? Women are turned on by absolute bad asses. 

So, from speaking for all men, you now move on to speaking for all women.  And not doing so very well, either.  Your view of women's views is extremely simplistic.  Some women are turned on by "badasses".  Speaking for myself, I have never seen Die Hard or any of the John Wick films, and am perfectly not seeing them. 

But if we're going to use actors and movies as examples, let's take a look at Mel Gibson.  Surely, we can all agree that he was quite the sex symbol back in the 80s and 90s, yes?  Had women swooning?

Well, fast forward a few decades, and I was shopping in a nearby college town.  A few students from the local university were in the bathroom at the same time as me, and were discussing having watched the Mel Gibson version  of Hamlet for class that day.  One said "Did you know he used to be a sex symbol?  He's so crazy, I can't imagine women finding him attractive."  Mel Gibson's badass days weren't exactly ancient history by this time, but he had outed himself as an anti-Semitic mean drunk.

So, yeah, it takes more than being a badass to be attractive to women.  Most women, anyway.

Males being aggressive or competitive is not toxic.

Straw man.  I never said it was.  Being aggressive or competitive when such traits are not useful and are possibly harmful is toxic.

The happiest woman is one that knows she's married to an absolute monster that channels their monstrosity for the good herself and her children first, and the good of her society.

The happiest woman in the world told you this herself?  Or is this entirely you presenting speculation as fact?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.58  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.19    last year
How much more competitive can you get?

Competing with whom, Drakk?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.59  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.34    last year
Sorry, but you wouldn't understand any answer I gave to this.

More condescension, which is insulting and not very Christlike.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.60  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.56    last year
Your comment came off (as I read it) to imply that Sandy (as a woman) cannot be correct about even observable properties of males because she is not male.

Agreed.

But then he goes on to tell me (a woman) what makes me go weak in the knees, and what would make me happiest.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.2.61  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.60    last year

... and aligns with those that want to tell you what you should do with your own body.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.62  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @7.2.61    last year

Yup.  While ignoring that his God commanded the abortion of fetuses conceived by adultery - the test of bitter water.

But that was ok.  That was about a man not wanting his walking incubator to have offspring that weren't his.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.63  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.57    last year
Some women are turned on by "badasses"

An old friend of mine's wife couldn't stand the big buff steroid looking guys. Said they looked gross.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.64  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @7.2.63    last year

Yeah.  There's muscular, and then there's muscle-bound.  Like Dwayne Johnson - not a look I care for.

My current crush is Tom Ellis in the TV series Lucifer.  Oh. Em. Gee.  Handsome as, well, the devil.  Funny as hell.  Really good actor.  British accent.  Excellent dresser (or at least excellent stylists on the show). Great chemistry with the female lead.  Good singer and pianist (not sure if that's really the actor playing and singing, TBH).  Fit, toned, but not beefed up.  Has the occasional action scene, and handles himself well in a fight (or the character does, at least), but I couldn't care less about those.  I want to watch him flirting, because he raises flirting to an art form.

One of my employees has discovered the same show, and we compare notes.  We are in agreement that he is damn near irresistible.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.65  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.57    last year
So, basically, you agree with me, but are still arguing.  That seems to me to represent a need to compete when competition isn't necessary.

Possibly. Hard to tell from such limited context so far. My argument is that men being capable of violence is not toxic. Men absolutely should be capable of extreme violence and should always be prepared to express it when necessary. Admittedly, I am filtering what you say through what is currently being pushed concerning what men should be, which I view as coming mostly from feminism. 

So, from speaking for all men, you now move on to speaking for all women.

Why do you do this? In pretending I am stupid do you think it allows you to be? I don't have a shred of doubt that you know I am speaking in terms of generalities. So, why do you think presenting yourself as a specific example, rather than the obviously true generality makes your argument valid?

The happiest woman in the world told you this herself?  Or is this entirely you presenting speculation as fact?

(sigh) I'm not going to bother with this.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.66  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.58    last year
Competing with whom, Drakk?

Already answered. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.67  Jack_TX  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.7    last year
I don't know what Jack will respond with but I know what I would. For males, competition is the basis of life.

Pretty close.  Although I'm not sure it's limited to males.  It's probably more visible with males.

Of course, it's more complicated than that.

Not really.  It's basic biology.  Living organisms are driven to reproduce.  For males, that generally requires out-competing the other males in whatever form of trial the female chooses.   Lions fight it out with teeth and claws.  Birds of Paradise dance.   Giraffes hit each other with their necks.  Bulls lock horns.  Human men use money, prestige, and wit.  Cooperation among men occurs when it helps them be more competitive.

If you enter this competition of adult life without even the most basic clue that it is, in fact, a competition, you have no chance.  If you don't know how to make and manage money, you have no chance.  If other men have no respect for you, you have no chance.  If you actually believe what women say about what they want in a mate, you have no chance.

When you put people into positions where they cannot possibly win or thrive, normal patterns of behavior soon cease to apply.  Normal moral values are soon abandoned.  They can comply with the wishes of the social system and be miserable alone or they can burn the thing down and make everybody else miserable, too.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.68  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.59    last year
More condescension, which is insulting and not very Christlike.

What evidence can you give to support this statement? More specifically, support your statement in light of Christ's statement that people would ever be hearing but not understanding. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.69  Drakkonis  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.67    last year
Not really.  It's basic biology.

Agreed, but what I meant was that such is complicated by sapience. That is, what you say is a perfect example of animals but isn't as simple with humans. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.70  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.68    last year

Just about every comment you make supports it

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.71  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.67    last year

And then there are some males that can slip in and mate while the so called alphas are distracted playing with each other...

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.72  Drakkonis  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.67    last year
When you put people into positions where they cannot possibly win or thrive, normal patterns of behavior soon cease to apply.  Normal moral values are soon abandoned.  They can comply with the wishes of the social system and be miserable alone or they can burn the thing down and make everybody else miserable, too.

Which, generally speaking, is where mass shooters come from.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.73  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.65    last year
My argument is that men being capable of violence is not toxic.

Nobody said it was.  Violence is sometimes necessary.

Why do you do this? In pretending I am stupid do you think it allows you to be?

More ad hom.  

I am speaking in terms of generalities.

You really should avoid doing that.  I know women who enjoy Die Hard, but I literally don't know any woman who sees Bruce Willis as a sex symbol because of that movie.  Some really liked him in Moonlighting, but that was more about him being funny and his chemistry with Cybill Shepherd.  "Badass" didn't really mean that much to them.

(sigh) I'm not going to bother with this.

Yeah, you really probably should let it go there, after deciding that YOU know best what makes women happiest.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.74  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.69    last year

Saying everything is a competition is simply not true.

Men have worked together to hunt not just for themselves but for whole villages.

We are not cave men that can just grab a woman and walk off. Claim whatever they want.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.75  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.66    last year
Already answered.

No.  Just sidestepped.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.76  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.68    last year

You can start with the Beatitudes.  "Blessed be the peacemakers", for example.  Insulting isn't peacemaking, and condescension is insulting.  Like your statement about hearing but not understanding is insulting.

Be a peacemaker, Drakk.  Try, if you can manage it, to have a conversation without resorting to personal insults.  That's what you did here in your very first comment on this thread.  Then you lied about it, then you doubled down on it.  That's not peacemaking.  It's belligerent, childish, and dishonest.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.77  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.3    last year
I'm honestly not sure what those skills would be, other than perhaps grooming and dressing well.  Conversational skills, maybe.  Women will usually be attracted to a decent-looking man who pays a bit of attention to his appearance and who has a pleasant personality.

That's a start, certainly.   But women are more attracted to wealth, confidence, height, and muscles.  Mostly wealth.

I really can't imagine why you'd say this.

Because in 30 years of coaching I've literally seen it thousands of times.

There are times for competition, and times for cooperation.

More often than not, men cooperate so they can compete better.   Whether we're playing team sports as kids or teaming up to form businesses as adults, we cooperate with some people to out-compete others.

  That seems like a very reasonable position to me.  Sports or looking for a job - competitive.  Running a household, raising kids, getting the actual job you have done with a team at work, bettering one's community - cooperative.  I really can't see how that's undermining young men at all.  Can you be more specific?

Sure.  Just listen to the phrases you use.  "Running a household".  "Raising kids".  At no point are women attracted to a man because he can fold a fitted sheet and buy the correct brand of tuna.  

That is exactly the kind of rubbish mothers tell their sons.  But that's not what attracted that woman to his father, and it's not going to help him.  We undermine young men by telling them to do the things women like to say they value instead of the things they actually do.  It's a lifetime sentence in the friendzone, if they're lucky enough to make it that far.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.78  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.10    last year
Men can cooperate. We see this in team sports, group projects, community development, military service, etc.

Sure.  But look at your examples.  We cooperate in team sports for the purpose of being competitive.  The same is true of military service.  War is the ultimate competition.  We work with teams in a corporate setting to win more business.  

The idea that men can't behave in any manner other than competitive is the very foundation of toxic masculinity, and sells men short. It implies that they can't be rational about when a competitive mindset is necessary, and when it's not.

It implies no such thing.  Just because you don't happen to like the facts of life does not make them toxic.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.79  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.77    last year
At no point are women attracted to a man because he can fold a fitted sheet and buy the correct brand of tuna

I beg to differ.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.80  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.56    last year
You are arguing with Sandy as if her notion of cooperation by males is incompatible with natural male competitiveness.

Sandy has made that argument.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.81  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @7.2.71    last year
And then there are some males that can slip in and mate while the so called alphas are distracted playing with each other...

Are you missing the point entirely or just posting nonsense for it's own sake?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.82  Jack_TX  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.72    last year
Which, generally speaking, is where mass shooters come from.

Given the current conditions for young men, it's frankly surprising we don't have more of them than we do.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.83  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.81    last year

You all are just exemplifying what this article is describing....

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.84  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @7.2.74    last year
Saying everything is a competition is simply not true.

Mating is a competition in pretty much every life form.  I'm not sure how that's in question.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.85  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.84    last year

Sorry but I never had to fight for a mate...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.86  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @7.2.83    last year
You all are just exemplifying what this article is describing....

I'm sure you think so.

But you just said women found sheet folding sexy, so your credibility isn't at its highest right now. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.87  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.86    last year

If you think women don't like someone that can take care of their own shit, sorry but you would be wrong.

Besides, I don't assign jobs depending on sex.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.88  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.57    last year
The happiest woman in the world told you this herself?  Or is this entirely you presenting speculation as fact?

I just never got that impression from my wife after all these decades of marriage.   I think she likes that I take care of business in many dimensions but she never seems (to me) to get off on "channeled monster".    And I am absolutely certain that my cooperation with our household (e.g. taking care of the myriad things that constantly seem to malfunction or get damaged) and helping her with her hobbies (e.g. making cookie cutters for her on my 3d printer) is very much appreciated (and I doubt this falls under the monster category).

Also I think women are generally competitive too but this manifests in a subtler manner.   Maybe as a whole not as much as men, but still quite prominent.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.89  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.60    last year
But then he goes on to tell me (a woman) what makes me go weak in the knees, and what would make me happiest.

So what is it that makes all women go weak in the knees and happy?

( Asking for a friend. )

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.90  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.64    last year
Like Dwayne Johnson - not a look I care for.

My wife luvs the Rock.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.91  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.88    last year

No offence..(uh huh)...butt....

I almost think that just sounds like you all have gotten comfortable with each other. Not in a bad way, in more of a way of relying on each other, as a couple.

I could almost say that is most people.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.92  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.77    last year
At no point are women attracted to a man because he can fold a fitted sheet and buy the correct brand of tuna.  

Yeah, that's just not true.  Women are generally attracted to men they know will make good partners.  So, money?  Yeah, sure.  But also, can he cook?  Calm a fussy baby?  Be trusted to go to the grocery store without her literally talking him through every aisle and holding his hand via cell phone for every tomato he squeezes?  Yes, that's all attractive, too.

And men also cooperate to achieve.  Watch an Amish barn-raising.  Nobody's winning any competition there, but there sure is a hell of a lot of cooperation going on.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.93  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.78    last year
It implies no such thing.

Of course it does.  Men who don't display toxic masculinity are able to allow their brains to direct their actions instead of their gonads.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.94  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.80    last year
Sandy has made that argument.

Not true.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.95  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.80    last year

You think Sandy has argued that male cooperation is incompatible with male competitiveness?   

That a male must suppress (use whichever verb you prefer) competitiveness to cooperate?    

Seems to me she has argued that male competitiveness is not the only means by which males express ourselves.   That society should encourage young men to pursue more than simply competing.    For example, creative pursuits (building machines, homes, etc., art, writing, ... ) or constructive pursuits such as leadership, negotiation, developing strategies, solving problems, ...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.96  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.86    last year
But you just said women found sheet folding sexy, so your credibility isn't at its highest right now. 

A woman just told you the same thing.  Surely, you don't think that you know what I like better than I do?  That would be irrational.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.97  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @7.2.91    last year

Sure, but the qualities I mentioned were quite prominently there when we were dating.    That is, she was very clear that I was not  Andrew Dice Clay and that my priorities were raising a healthy family, being financially secure, and having the freedom to be creative.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.98  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.88    last year

Exactly.  TBH, the "channeled monster" seems like a misplaced violent outburst waiting to happen.  I can see constantly having to talk such a man down from the ledge.  I suppose some people believe that kind of anger reflects a passion to defend one's wife/girlfriend and kids, which I suppose some would see as romantic.  But for myself, I prefer a guy who's not always a dam on the verge of bursting.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.99  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.89    last year
So what is it that makes all women go weak in the knees and happy?

See my comment re: Tom Ellis.  I have a sample of two women who would be quite competitive for his attention, if we thought we had a chance in Hell.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.100  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.93    last year
Men who don't display toxic masculinity are able to allow their brains to direct their actions instead of their gonads.

I would say that some men are more driven by primal factors (e.g. the amygdala / hormones) vs the frontal lobe.   (I think this is true for women too.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.101  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.99    last year

( I was just kidding. )

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.102  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.90    last year
My wife luvs the Rock.

I thought he looked better back in the 90s, when he wasn't quite so ginormous.  I do think he's entertaining.  I mean, he's never going to win an Oscar or anything, but I can laugh at his movies.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.103  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.95    last year

Yes, thank you.  At no point did I say that men must be either purely cooperative or purely competitive.  I've explicitly said there are appropriate situations for competitiveness.  Some folks are choosing to read words I never wrote and attributing them to me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.104  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.103    last year

I am very familiar with this dynamic in forums.    Not only must one make a clear point and be careful with word choice, but one must continually correct "misinterpretations".   

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.105  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.97    last year

No offence..Really I don't mean any.

I sometimes forget that of all the posters here I am one of the youngest.

I sometimes think we just have a different mindset. There are no specific roles for any gender.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.106  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @7.2.105    last year

I took no offense, Ender.   

Also, I was not speaking of specific gender roles.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.107  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.106    last year

I think that is the difference with the age difference. The only thing I would consider a gender specific role would be childbirth.

I don't see why other things would have to be defined. People and society changes away from what people like us have grown up in.

Women can hunt. Men can farm and forage. I just really don't see any roles that would have to be gender specific.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.108  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @7.2.107    last year
The only thing I would consider a gender specific role would be childbirth.  ...  I just really don't see any roles that would have to be gender specific.

Ender, why are you talking about gender specific roles?   

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.109  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.108    last year

I was alluding to the way different generations view things.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.110  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.76    last year
Be a peacemaker, Drakk.  Try, if you can manage it, to have a conversation without resorting to personal insults.  That's what you did here in your very first comment on this thread.  Then you lied about it, then you doubled down on it.  That's not peacemaking.  It's belligerent, childish, and dishonest.

Okay. Then how would you express to someone that their worldview is a fantasy in such a way that it could not be accused of being a personal insult? Then, after that, show how your own words can't be taken as personal insults. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.111  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.110    last year
Then how would you express to someone that their worldview is a fantasy in such a way that it could not be accused of being a personal insult? 

Let's use an all-too-familiar example.

My perspective is that the Bible is not divine.    Its errors and contradictions are what one would expect from a work produced over more than a thousand years by ancient men who were well-versed in traditions of their history and funded by rulers with an agenda.   I see no good reason to hold the Bible as divine.

That is my view.   I could have stated that your view of reality is a fantasy based on your belief in biblical divinity.   My statement, however, simply noted my position and offered reasons why I hold it.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.112  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.111    last year
That is my view.

Yes, I know. But you're speaking of talking to me directly. You don't include things you say to other people. In both cases you do, in fact, say things that can easily be taken as personal insults. You, of course, will claim that they are not, which is the point behind what I've said. While I might be offended personally on some level, I dismiss it as irrelevant to the point being made, whether it's valid or not. 

Either way, no matter what manner in which you speak, I understand the nature of this place. I understand that this place isn't a support group. It is about expressing one's thoughts and opinions. Well, ideally, anyway. Because of that, I don't take what you or anyone else says personally, even when they are intended to be personal. In other words, I participate in this place because I'm interested in the point, not to validate myself. That is, this isn't about me. If people can't understand that about this place they probably shouldn't be here. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.113  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.102    last year
I thought he looked better back in the 90s, when he wasn't quite so ginormous.  I do think he's entertaining.  I mean, he's never going to win an Oscar or anything, but I can laugh at his movies.

I pretty much watch any movie he appears in, even if the movie is voted the worst ever made. I can't say for sure why but I think it is because in both movies and real life, he pretty much exemplifies what most men wants to be. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.114  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.113    last year
he pretty much exemplifies what most men wants to be

Think again.

Here we are at the beginning of this...

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.115  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @7.2.114    last year
Think again.

I see. So your argument is that men don't want to be seen as strong, self assured individuals able to handle themselves in any situation while simultaneously be appealing to women? Can't wait for that argument. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.116  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.110    last year

Oh, are you feeling persecuted because I called you out for insulting me?

That's a shame.  But it's a "you" problem.  Try not tripling down on the insults.

After taking a look at the Beatitudes, you can meander on over to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.117  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.115    last year

Not everybody sees him that way, Drakk.  I see him as a somewhat endearingly goofy gym rat on steroids.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.2.118  JBB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.117    last year

Professional Wrestler come Action Star...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.119  sandy-2021492  replied to  JBB @7.2.118    last year

Exactly.  I like men with a bit of emotional and intellectual depth.  Now, maybe The Rock has that, but one wouldn't know it from his acting.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.2.120  JBB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.119    last year

A caricature of comic book masculinity...

At least he pulls it off with a wink/smile.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.121  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.116    last year
Oh, are you feeling persecuted because I called you out for insulting me?

Apparently, you didn't read my response to TiG. Whether or not you insult me is irrelevant to me. Whether or not I'm being persecuted is irrelevant to me. What you think of me is irrelevant to me. If it pleases you to believe otherwise, go for it, but I find it boring. I'm not here to promote me. I'm here to talk about my views and the views of others. If you find those views offensive that's unfortunate, but not a reason for me not to express my views. As such, I'm done with explaining this to you. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.122  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.117    last year
Not everybody sees him that way, Drakk. 

Gosh! Really??

I see him as a somewhat endearingly goofy gym rat on steroids.

Well then. That must be how everyone sees him. Except that it doesn't explain why he's so popular. I mean, it certainly couldn't be that he's handsome and extremely masculine, yet portrayed as non-toxic and is naturally charming in most of his roles. Nope. The somewhat endearingly goofy gym rat explains it better. Good argument. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.123  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.121    last year

Your behavior here belies your words and your professed beliefs.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.124  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.122    last year

The types of roles he takes are pretty much ideal for an endearingly goofy gym rat and for his level of acting ability. So, those types of films are popular. Big deal. That doesn't make him the epitome of what every, or even most, men want to be, nor of what every, or even most, women want in a man. Most know the type of workouts, meals, and drugs required to maintain his physique are not conducive to a pleasant life, and possibly not even a healthy one.

Regarding him being attractive because he's not a toxic person - well, that's a pretty low bar.

You know, it strikes me that this entire conversation illustrates the problem young men may be having in finding young women to date.  You have an actual woman telling you what she likes and dislikes, and your response is basically "Nuh uh.  The box office is the best judge of what women like."  You seem to think that you can speak for women, but an actual woman can't.  Your attitude here has been "When I want your opinion about what women like in men, I'll give it to you."

Maybe the skill young men should be taught is listening, and not assuming that they're authorities on the thoughts and emotions of others.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.125  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.123    last year
Your behavior here belies your words and your professed beliefs.

Translation: Your belief as to what my beliefs are belies what you think my beliefs are.

If you want to have a meaningful conversation about this, provide reasoning behind your opinion. Otherwise, you are simply lowing like a cow or quacking like a duck. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.126  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.125    last year

I've given you quotes from the scriptures you claim to follow, Drakk, as has John. If you can't understand how your insulting behavior is inconsistent with those instructions, that's on you.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.2.127  evilone  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.40    last year
you should be able to explain how crimes from six thousand years ago no longer exist today because humans have evolved beyond such things.

You must ascribe to the "veneer theory" in that all people don't run amok only because of the threat of punishment? Or that people are naturally bad. I do not. I never claimed crimes don't exists (they are called crimes for a reason). I claim these things are socially destructive and over the course of human history have become less acceptable and happen less frequently. ALL scientific and statistical data supports that. 

Good, bad or indifferent actions and attitudes are taught. Raise a child in household to hate and they will. Raise a child in a household to think women are property and he will do that. Raise a child in a household to love and respect herself and she will. 

Socially we have been conditioned to accept the strong silent type, the antihero and the cop that shoots a bad guy on TV every week is a hero. At one time the pinnacle (the apex) of society was a thin pasty inbred that wore a wig and face powder. What we know is that sometimes that rich, handsome college quarterback turns out to be a serial date raper. The idea of owning and breeding other human people was once a capital industry and looked up to by the community. Today the idea is abhorrent. We no longer pit humans and tigers in death duels either. We, as a society are beginning to recognize that the talented, handsome, college quarterback can no longer be shielded from abhorrent antisocial behavior.

The issue in the article at it's bedrock is that we are now working at this crossroads where many cling to "traditional" gender rolls and what phycologists are pointing out where these attitudes can and have been destructive. Competition can be good, but using that as an excuse for toxic behavior is worse and won't be tolerated. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.128  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.124    last year
The types of roles he takes are pretty much ideal for an endearingly goofy gym rat and for his level of acting ability.

Absolutely. That's what viewers want to see, right? Endearingly goofy gym rats.

So, those types of films are popular.

Yep. The viewing public has made it clear that what it wants is endearingly goofy gym rats. 

That doesn't make him the epitome of what every, or even most, men want to be, nor of what every, or even most, women want in a man.

Of course. People didn't go to see him in his wrestling career because he was manly, but because they saw in him the spirt of Laurel and Hardy. This continues with his acting career. 

Most know the type of workouts, meals, and drugs required to maintain his physique are not conducive to a pleasant life, and possibly not even a healthy one.

A good point, and one I admittedly missed. Most people rate movies on exactly such criteria. Thanks for pointing it out. 

Regarding him being attractive because he's not a toxic person - well, that's a pretty low bar.

Um, as much as I am struggling to agree with everything you say, this one is a doozy. Practically anything a man does other than being dead is described as toxic. 

You know, it strikes me that this entire conversation illustrates the problem young men may be having in finding young women to date.  You have an actual woman telling you what she likes and dislikes, and your response is basically "Nuh uh.  The box office is the best judge of what women like."  You seem to think that you can speak for women, but an actual woman can't.  Your attitude here has been "When I want your opinion about what women like in men, I'll give it to you."

Okay. At this point I'm laying aside the sarcasm that should be obvious to anyone with a working brain to the comments you've made in this post so far. 

You have an actual woman telling you what she likes and dislikes, and your response is basically "Nuh uh. 

Which would be relevant if what I've been saying was about you, specifically. Do you think they were? Do you think I've been saying these things because of what I believe your point of view is? 

Nuh uh.  The box office is the best judge of what women like."

Not the way I would put it. The box office responds to what women like because it produces the most profit. Do you think because you're a woman means that every woman sees Duane Johnson the same way you do? 

You seem to think that you can speak for women, but an actual woman can't. 

Then you misunderstand my argument. I am not arguing against what you personally think. I am speaking of general trends. 

Your attitude here has been "When I want your opinion about what women like in men, I'll give it to you."

Which can be said of any opinion or view that doesn't align with yours from a male. Not saying anything much here. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.129  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.126    last year
I've given you quotes from the scriptures you claim to follow, Drakk, as has John. If you can't understand how your insulting behavior is inconsistent with those instructions, that's on you.

Um, yeah. 

If I shake a road killed cat in your face and then claim your lack of understanding of why I did so is on you, how valid an argument would that be? 

If the meaning of that escapes you, let me dumb it down for you. You say you've given me quotes from scriptures I claim not to follow. Do you not understand that doing so is useless unless we both agree on what that particular scripture means? All you end up doing is trying to make an argument based on what you think, not on what is empirically true. 

So, if you really want to have this conversation, begin with what you think those verse mean rather than assume your interpretation is the same as mine. Otherwise, this simply becomes a Laurel and Hardy skit about who's on first base. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.130  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.112    last year
But you're speaking of talking to me directly.

Splitting hairs.   You asked:

Drakk @7.2.10 ☞ Then how would you express to someone that their worldview is a fantasy in such a way that it could not be accused of being a personal insult? 

I offered an example of how to do this.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.131  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.130    last year

Aside from the fact that your reference is incorrect (in that it references something Sandy said, not me) stating that I am splitting hairs doesn't make it a fact. It's simply a device for not dealing with what I said. 

Putting that aside, you did not provide such an example. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.132  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.129    last year
Do you not understand that doing so is useless unless we both agree on what that particular scripture means? All you end up doing is trying to make an argument based on what you think, not on what is empirically true

How does one define 'empirically true' regarding exegesis of the Bible?    If persons A and B have different interpretations of a passage, who determines which (if any) interpretation is 'empirically true'?    I am not talking about ridiculous extremes, but rather something very specific such as:

Exodus 21:20-21:   20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

This is a rhetorical question to make a point.   Clearly two persons A and B can have opposing interpretations where one claims that this is God moderating the practice of slavery while not approving of the reality that human beings are being held as property;  while the other interprets this as more evidence that 'God' (aka the authors of the Bible) condones the practice of owning human beings as property (even allows beating said property ... as long as it does not die in result within a couple of days).

Point:   knowing what is empirically true per the Bible is largely unachievable because everyone has the right to interpret it as they see fit and there is no active authority to determine which interpretation is correct.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.133  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.131    last year
Aside from the fact that your reference is incorrect 

Petty; a typo; I typed 10 instead of 110.   Reference = Drakk @7.2.110   

You asked a question.  

Drakk @7.2.110 ☞ Then how would you express to someone that their worldview is a fantasy in such a way that it could not be accused of being a personal insult? 

I offered an example of how to do this:

TiG@7.2.111  ☞ Let's use an all-too-familiar example.

My perspective is that the Bible is not divine.    Its errors and contradictions are what one would expect from a work produced over more than a thousand years by ancient men who were well-versed in traditions of their history and funded by rulers with an agenda.   I see no good reason to hold the Bible as divine.

That is my view.   I could have stated that your view of reality is a fantasy based on your belief in biblical divinity.   My statement, however, simply noted my position and offered reasons why I hold it.
 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.134  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.13    last year
Drakk, the defense that "it wasn't an insult because it's true" doesn't fly, and is also based on your very biased interpretations. Also, insulting me, trying unsuccessfully to gaslight me about insulting me, and doubling down on insulting me are extremely un-Christlike actions. In this context, however, it has been an excellent illustration of toxic masculinity.  So thanks for that contribution to the discussion.

Trying really hard to think of a way to respond in a way you can't take personally, but it's probably a pointless effort. So...

Drakk, the defense that "it wasn't an insult because it's true" doesn't fly, and is also based on your very biased interpretations.

I can only assume that you are completely unaware of what NT is. Assuming that is true, let me explain it to you. NT exists for the expression of a person's point of view concerning a given subject. Those points of view are subject to what they believe to be true. In other words, it is based on their biases. Whether you believe it or not, this applies to you as well. Therefore, that what I said "doesn't fly" is simply your opinion and those who hold the biases you do. It isn't fact. 

Also, insulting me, trying unsuccessfully to gaslight me about insulting me, and doubling down on insulting me are extremely un-Christlike actions.

(extreme eye roll) You continue to think this is about you. Boring. I am, however, interested in your claim that my actions are "un-Christlike". Please provide an argument for your claim.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.135  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.132    last year
I am not talking about ridiculous extremes, but rather something very specific such as:

Except that you do exactly what you claim not to do. Take something to ridiculous extremes. More, you prove my point. There's no point in biblical references unless there is agreement in what it means. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.136  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.135    last year

More deflection.   

There's no point in biblical references unless there is agreement in what it means. 

I was not arguing against that point, Drakk.    And you know it.   You asked this question:

Drakk  @7.2.110  ☞ Then how would you express to someone that their worldview is a fantasy in such a way that it could not be accused of being a personal insult? 

You keep pretending that I did not answer your question by providing an example. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.137  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.133    last year
That is my view.   I could have stated that your view of reality is a fantasy based on your belief in biblical divinity.

Except that you have done that very thing, both to me and to others in conversations I was not involved in. Every single time you erroneously state that we believe without evidence, regardless of how much we provide evidence of the contrary, you are being offensive. Dismissive. I ignore it because I assume that you are not intentionally doing so but, rather, simply expressing your opinion. It isn't your behavior I focus on but, rather, your point. 

Sandy, apparently, cannot do so. For her, everything is personal. Not my problem, nor am I going to stop saying what I think is true because of it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.138  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.137    last year

You again deflect.    

You asked this question:

Drakk   @7.2.110   ☞ Then how would you express to someone that their worldview is a fantasy in such a way that it could not be accused of being a personal insult? 

You keep pretending that I did not answer your question by providing an example.   

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.139  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.136    last year
You keep pretending that I did not answer your question by providing an example.

It isn't pretense. You didn't answer my question because you provided an example supporting my argument rather than yours. As useless as it is likely to be, allow me to explain. Your supposed example is, in your mind, inoffensive. You believe it to be so because of your perceived motives for saying what you say. This is no different than what I've said to Sandy or anyone else. 

If what I've said is unclear to you, then let me put it more plainly. The reason you think your example isn't offensive is because you don't think it is offensive. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.140  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @7.2.79    last year

Isn't it hilarious how some men choose to speak for all women?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.141  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.113    last year

So you have a crush on The Rock?

LOL

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.142  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.139    last year

Just amazing watching you deny the blatantly obvious.

The reason you think your example isn't offensive is because you don't think it is offensive. 

Anyone can deem anything to be offensive; you are just evading the point.

You continue to ignore the difference between claiming someone is kidding themselves vs. expressing one's position and making no mention of those who would believe otherwise.

In super simple terms:

Offensive:   You are living in a fantasy world (regarding belief 'B')

Not-offensive (not intended to be):    I do not believe 'B' is true for these reasons.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.143  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.123    last year

Yes, indeed Sandy he does.  

Typical.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.144  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.112    last year

TiG never insults, that would be you drakk with every single post.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.145  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.142    last year
Anyone can deem anything to be offensive; you are just evading the point.

Amazing how you can state what the point is and then immediately dismiss it 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.146  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.125    last year

Yeah, again, that's not insulting at all.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

You sound just like the toxic males you support.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.147  Drakkonis  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.141    last year
So you have a crush on The Rock?

In a sense, yes. Most men would love to be what he portrays on screen and off. Strong, confident, charming and the rest. Do you find this surprising? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.148  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.129    last year

You make no goddamned sense.

Yet you continue to jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
7.2.149  evilone  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.145    last year
Amazing how you can state what the point is and then immediately dismiss it 

It's amazing how YOU work so hard to miss the entire point. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.150  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.147    last year

No, you're wrong, just like every post you've made here.

Thanks for admitting you love the rock and wish you were him.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.151  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.145    last year

You dismiss everyone else with your insults and arrogance and pompousness.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.152  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.137    last year

You've made it personal against Sandy with every post with your insults and arrogance and pompousness and you continue to double and triple down on it.

What you think is true . . .jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.153  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.139    last year

I beg to differ, you are quite pretentious.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.154  Texan1211  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.145    last year
[deleted]
 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.155  Drakkonis  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.151    last year
You dismiss everyone else with your insults and arrogance and pompousness.

If you take what I say as insults, arrogance and pompousness, that's on you and anyone else who feels the same. I extend the same to everyone else here. I might be offended by what someone says but I don't allow it to influence my argument. How I feel is irrelevant. The point being discussed is what is relevant. 

If you want an example of what an insult, arrogance and pompousness would look like from me, consider the fact that I seldom ever reply to anything you say. This is because I believe doing so amounts to trying to have a meaningful conversation with my dog. Not sure if saying this fits the "arrogance and pompousness" aspect of your post but, whatever. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.156  Drakkonis  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.150    last year
Thanks for admitting you love the rock and wish you were him.

And thanks for demonstrating why responding to your posts is a waste of electrons. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.157  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.139    last year
You believe it to be so because of your perceived motives for saying what you say. 

As I noted, you are taking the position that anything can be offensive thus there is no way to ever say or write anything to ensure another will not take offense.   Of course, but that is just taking things to a ridiculous extreme to deflect from the point.

Putting aside the notion that someone can be offended by anything, my point is that it is quite possible to state one's position without being offensive to an individual.

Person 'A' holds a belief.   Person 'B' does not hold that belief.

Person 'B' can ridicule 'A' personally by describing 'A' as living in a fantasy world.   That is a directly personal comment.

Person 'B' could, alternatively, simply explain why they do not hold the belief.    That is an analytical opinion that does not deal with 'A' in any manner.

Sure, 'A' could be offended no matter what 'B' writes but that misses the point that leaving 'A' out of the commentary focuses the critique onto the belief and not on 'A'.


Directly now.   You said that Sandy was living in a fantasy world.   That is a directly personal comment.   Alternatively, you could have simply criticized her belief in a logical, factual manner and left her (personally) out of it.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.158  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.141    last year

Oh no Avatar was popular.

That means men want to be tall skinny blue people and that is what women want men to be....

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.159  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @7.2.85    last year
Sorry but I never had to fight for a mate...

You competed for one, whether you knew you were doing it or not.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.160  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @7.2.87    last year
If you think women don't like someone that can take care of their own shit, sorry but you would be wrong.

Of course.  I never suggested otherwise. That doesn't mean they choose a man simply because he's good at housework.  They generally have much higher standards.

Besides, I don't assign jobs depending on sex.

Really?  Putting 50lb boxes back up in the attic after Christmas is an equal opportunity mission?  Riiiiight.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.161  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.92    last year
Yeah, that's just not true.  Women are generally attracted to men they know will make good partners.

Riiiiight.   They don't like "bad boys" or anything. 

Look, I realize they like to talk a good game about "good partners", but their actions tell a very different story. 

  So, money?  Yeah, sure.  But also, can he cook?  Calm a fussy baby?  Be trusted to go to the grocery store without her literally talking him through every aisle and holding his hand via cell phone for every tomato he squeezes?  Yes, that's all attractive, too.

To older women, maybe.  Not to young ones.  

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
7.2.162  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.160    last year

“That doesn't mean they choose a man simply because he's good at housework.  They generally have much higher standards.”

Perhaps those standards include being willing to even help with the housework. Do tell what ‘higher standards’ you ascribe.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.163  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.157    last year
Directly now.   You said that Sandy was living in a fantasy world.   That is a directly personal comment.   Alternatively, you could have simply criticized her belief in a logical, factual manner and left her (personally) out of it.

Right. You have yet to provide anything that says the same thing but isn't offensive (in your opinion). Why is that? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.164  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.96    last year
A woman just told you the same thing.  Surely, you don't think that you know what I like better than I do?  That would be irrational.

For the record, we're not talking about any woman old enough to think of Bruce Willis in terms of a sex symbol.  The article is about "angry young men".  And telling them that women their age are generally attracted to a man because he can "run a household" is complete nonsense and does them a disservice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.165  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.163    last year

You are unable to read the words I provided in my initial response where I made critical comments about a belief but did not get personal??

Why do you play these pointless games?   

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
7.2.166  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.164    last year

“…is complete nonsense and does them a disservice.”

What is complete nonsense is an aged male individual speaking for an entire younger female generation. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.167  Jack_TX  replied to  afrayedknot @7.2.162    last year
 Perhaps those standards include being willing to even help with the housework. Do tell what ‘higher standards’ you ascribe.

Dude... Seriously.  Quote function. Highlight the lines you want to quote and click the quote marks up next to your avatar.

To answer your "standards" question, they generally want men to be tall, rich (or with good prospects of becoming so), good-looking, intelligent, funny and reasonably muscular.  

I'm pretty sure there isn't a "good at housework" option on dating apps...because young women don't care about it at all.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
7.2.168  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.165    last year

Were you unable to read the response that said just because you didn't find them offensive or personal doesn't mean they weren't? 

Why do you play these pointless games?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.169  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.168    last year

Now you resort to Pee Wee Herman tactics?   

Even so, I addressed that directly @7.2.157:

TiG @7.2.157 ☞ As I noted, you are taking the position that anything can be offensive thus there is no way to ever say or write anything to ensure another will not take offense.   Of course, but that is just taking things to a ridiculous extreme to deflect from the point. 
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.170  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.155    last year

Wow what a hateful arrogant pompous and ignorant thing you just said, you managed to top yourself and wow no that's not insulting at all.

What a small c faux christian you are,

Thanking for proving that beyond a doubt

Such a hateful arrogant toxic male you've also proven yourself to be beyond a doubt.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.171  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.156    last year

Such arrogance and hate like your fellow faux small c christians and such toxic masculinity,

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.172  Tessylo  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.156    last year

Your thumbs up are the same as you, toxic.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.173  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.128    last year

You're conflating box office popularity with desirableness as a sexual or marital partner.

Tom Cruise is still reasonably popular at the box office.  But after the couch jumping, the verbal attacks on Brooke Shields, and watching Katie Holmes basically pull off a defection-type escape from the marriage, most women would not be interested in dating him.

Women actually do know the difference between a guy who can sell movie tickets and a guy they'd want to date or marry.

Maybe you should ask some of them for some tips.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.174  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.129    last year

Drakk, you're the one asking me to clarify to you how your behavior has been not very Christ-like.  You're the one who apparently needs your own damn religion dumbed down for you.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.175  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.134    last year
I am, however, interested in your claim that my actions are "un-Christlike". Please provide an argument for your claim.

No, you're not.  I've provided examples from your own scriptures.  You have been either unwilling or unable to understand them.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.176  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.161    last year
Riiiiight.   They don't like "bad boys" or anything.

Some do.  Some don't.

To older women, maybe.  Not to young ones. 

With age comes wisdom.  Usually.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.177  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.164    last year
For the record, we're not talking about any woman old enough to think of Bruce Willis in terms of a sex symbol.  The article is about "angry young men".

You should aim this at Drakk.  I didn't bring up Bruce Willis.

And young women do actually think a guy who isn't helpless around the house is sexy.  Or at least I did when I was young, as did my female friends.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.2.178  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.177    last year

I'll load the dishwasher, but when the vacuuming starts I'm out the door with the dog and cat...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.179  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.175    last year

He's provided so many examples of his "un-Christlike" behavior.

Unreal how self-unaware some are.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.180  Jack_TX  replied to  afrayedknot @7.2.166    last year
What is complete nonsense is an aged male individual speaking for an entire younger female generation.

Observing their behavior is not "speaking for them". 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.181  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.176    last year
With age comes wisdom.  Usually.

Does that include enough wisdom to recognize that the behaviors of young women differ greatly from the behaviors of older women?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.182  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.177    last year
And young women do actually think a guy who isn't helpless around the house is sexy.  

Sure.  As long as he has 6 other, far more important things going for him.  

Or at least I did when I was young, as did my female friends.

Life in the pre-dating app world was different.  

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
7.2.183  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.180    last year

“Observing their behavior is not "speaking for them". “

Fair enough.

But unless a sociologist and not just a voyeur, I’ll stick with the wise words of the women whom have offered their take on the subject. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.184  Jack_TX  replied to  afrayedknot @7.2.183    last year
But unless a sociologist and not just a voyeur, I’ll stick with the wise words of the women whom have offered their take on the subject. 

The professional sociology on this has become widely prevalent over the last few years, especially with people like Jordan Peterson selling so many books.  Sadly, the science has been politicized to the point where half the population refutes the obvious simply because their tribe has aligned against the messenger.

TBH.. I suspect neither of us are likely to be classified as "young men", so it hardly matters what we accept or don't. 

But the building of this societal shitshow with our young men and boys has been well-documented for decades.  They've been studying this stuff and writing about it since the 1970s.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.185  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.184    last year
The professional sociology on this has become widely prevalent over the last few years,

That's rich.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.186  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.180    last year
Observing their behavior is not "speaking for them". 

It is when doing so in opposition to what they're telling you, themselves.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.187  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.181    last year
Does that include enough wisdom to recognize that the behaviors of young women differ greatly from the behaviors of older women?

It does.

And one of the things I no longer do is to allow men whom I have never met to speak about my experiences as if they know them better than I do, myself, which is what you do when you make generalizations about women.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.188  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.186    last year
It is when doing so in opposition to what they're telling you, themselves.

They're not.  You are.  

We're talking about young women.  By your own admission, you have friends who thought Bruce Willis was sexy in Moonlighting.  Which means you are at least as ancient as I am and probably more.

You are still trying to defend the traditional old woman behavior of telling young men and boys what young women OUGHT to want in a man as though it is what they actually DO want in a man.  

But unless he's looking for dates in the Over 60's Bridge Club, it's complete nonsense. 

We're talking about young people.  Those high school girls who have crushes on "cute boys" do not give a tinker's damn about their ability to "run a household".  College girls are not sleeping with frat boys thinking "I bet he'll be able to grow a great patch of Kentucky fescue in our backyard".  The 25-year-old at a nightclub is not scouting around for the man she thinks is best able to fold fitted sheets and recognize tuna brands, despite your earlier ridiculous suggestions.

Even the most casual observers can easily recognize that young women gravitate toward tall, muscular, handsome, successful, confident men who know how to talk to women.  

But let's just go ahead and pretend it's about the tuna.  

FFS.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
7.2.189  afrayedknot  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.188    last year

“FFS.”

Indeed, Jack…pick anything else in which to joust…you’ve got nothing here. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.190  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.188    last year
Which means you are at least as ancient as I am and probably more.

I'm actually probably one of the youngest people here.  Not ancient.  Moonlighting aired when I was in middle/high school, and established Bruce Willis as a sex symbol, but not especially among my friends, nor did I say so.  I was telling Drakk that Willis' history as a sex symbol was based not entirely on the Die Hard movies, nor on being a badass.  It went back further, and was based more on his chemistry with Cybill Shepherd than on his perceived physical prowess.

I have actually been a 20-some-year-old woman at a night club, Jack (not 25.  I married young).  You haven't.  But I've also been a 20-some-year-old woman who found that the best way to meet guys worth knowing wasn't necessarily a night club, but in class, in campus clubs, playing sports, hanging out with friends.  Guys from night clubs might have been ok for one-night stands, but most women I knew even in college weren't into that.  They were looking more for long-term relationships, so, yeah, a guy who could cook and didn't call a girl asking her how to do laundry was appreciated.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.2.191  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.190    last year

I taught my ex how to cook, do laundry, and drive. I guess my priorities were a bit confused.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.193  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @7.2.191    last year

One of my dental school friends was dating a guy, and it was pretty serious, but then they started having problems.  For some reason, he asked his mom to help them talk things through (mama's boy - huge red flag right there).  Anyway, one of his complaints was that my friend didn't fold his laundry the way he liked it to be folded.  His mom apparently laid into him right there.  "Wait a minute.  You two aren't married, and aren't even living together, and you expect her to do your laundry?  Do you do her laundry?"  Of course he didn't.  His mom told him that he was the problem, which was hilarious.  Even more hilarious was that he'd told my friend that was what to expect from an Italian guy - more traditional gender roles, her doing his laundry while he played softball.  His Italian mama set his ass straight.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.194  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.190    last year
 Moonlighting aired when I was in middle/high school,

Which means you're in your 50's, so we can agree that we're both talking about "young women" in the third person.

I have actually been a 20-some-year-old woman at a night club, Jack (not 25.  I married young).

Yeah.  In 1992.  And even back then, tall, good-looking, rich and muscular beat "good with laundry" every time. 

You haven't.

This is just getting hilarious. 

No dear, I've never been a woman in a nightclub, bar, college campus, spring break trip to Ft. Lauderdale, co-ed soccer league, or anywhere else, for that matter.  

So what could I possibly know about picking up women in those places?

I'll let you think about that one.  Go ahead.  Take your time.

 But I've also been a 20-some-year-old woman who found that the best way to meet guys worth knowing wasn't necessarily a night club, but in class, in campus clubs, playing sports, hanging out with friends.

And they naturally gravitated toward short, fat, broke, awkward guys who could spot a good can of tuna..... 

Oh..... wait....

No.  They didn't.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2.195  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.167    last year
To answer your "standards" question, they generally want men to be tall, rich (or with good prospects of becoming so), good-looking, intelligent, funny and reasonably muscular.  

What makes you so sure?

My husband while good looking, intelligent, and funny is not tall nor muscular. But he can fold laundry like nobody's business. Knows how to cook and bake, and keeps things tidy. But he's also my jar opener because I have arthritis. And he looks sexy as hell on the lawn mower.

So, Jack....why don't you ask a real woman what they want. And BTW, I knew this about my spouse 34 years ago when we got married

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.196  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.194    last year

Forty-eight.

Good grief.  This whole thing started because Drakk thinks that Bruce Willis and the Rock are the epitome of what women want, because they sell movie tickets, and because he has a man crush on them.  You really can't fathom that women might want more than a box-office success?  That male admiration for a man might not translate into female admiration for the same man?

You can say it's getting hilarious, but I've given specific examples to rebut Drakk's points.  Bruce Willis was a sex symbol before he went up against Allan Rickman (who, by the way, is also a sex symbol, but has generally not been considered badass, just because he's such a nice guy, skilled actor, and has a voice like silk) in Nakatomi Plaza.  His sex symbol status had already been established.

Mel Gibson lost his sex symbol status by being an asshole.

I'm providing specific examples, and you basically have "no, no, I know better."

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.198  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.195    last year
My husband while good looking, intelligent, and funny is not tall nor muscular.

So.... three out of five.

But he can fold laundry like nobody's business.

And if you're honest you'll admit that had zero to do with you agreeing to a first date.

So, Jack....why don't you ask a real woman what they want.

Because they're not honest about it.  They're like Baptists at a convention, who condemn all the whisky drinking and then pretend they don't understand how the liquor stores are all sold out. 

Women who have been married for decades tell you the things that are important to them now, ignoring or even ridiculously denying the fact that those things were not even in the back of their minds when they were 18.  Young women will tell you the things they think will create the image of them they would like you to have.  But actions speak louder than words.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.199  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.196    last year
I'm providing specific examples, and you basically have "no, no, I know better."

How many times in your life have you asked a young woman on a date?

Please.  Tell us about how you've been successful at it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2.200  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.198    last year
And if you're honest you'll admit that had zero to do with you agreeing to a first date.

You would be right. I just thought myself lucky that this handsome man wanted to go out with me. Later as we were dating, I became aware of his folding skills. He had been married before and was living on his own so he had to take care of himself. He was self sufficient and not looking for someone to take care of him. That attracted me more to him. I didn't need anyone to take care of me, either, and he found that attractive. So four months later we got married

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.201  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.199    last year

Jack, you're telling us your experiences as a man.  We, who were once young women, are telling you what young women want.

You're talking about young men getting sex, and now you're talking about them getting first dates.  First dates don't always yield sex.  And your scenarios seem to be limited to young men asking out young women whom they don't know in settings like night clubs.  You seem to discount that some young men ask out women they already know and have known for a while - young women who actually have an idea whether those young men are able to fix an edible dinner, who can tell from seeing them daily whether they're doing laundry, who maybe have been to their apartments or dorm rooms and know whether they vacuum or wash dishes.

In college, I dated men I already knew from class, or from shared activities.  I knew way more about them than just their looks.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.202  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.2.200    last year
You would be right. I just thought myself lucky that this handsome man wanted to go out with me. Later as we were dating, I became aware of his folding skills. He had been married before and was living on his own so he had to take care of himself. He was self sufficient and not looking for someone to take care of him. That attracted me more to him. I didn't need anyone to take care of me, either, and he found that attractive. So four months later we got married

First, let me say it sounds like you guys are great together, and congratulations on 34 years.

Second, thanks for being honest. 

I don't understand why it's so difficult for some people to admit that the things we find important in our 50s are different than the things we valued in our 30s, which were altogether different than what attracted us to people at 19.

Telling a 20 year old boy that women want a man who can help run a household is like telling a 20 year old girl that men are looking for a woman who can decorate a guest bedroom. 

When we're talking to and about young people, we need to be talking in terms of things that are relevant to them, not us. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
7.2.203  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.202    last year

Yes, we do.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.2.204  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2.201    last year
Jack, you're telling us your experiences as a man.

Men.... by which you mean the people who actually have to live with the consequences of acting on or ignoring this advice, and therefore know whether or not it's worth anything.

  We, who were once young women, are telling you what young women want.

The comedy of the phrase "what women want" aside, how many times have you asked a woman on a date and how many of those times were you successful?

You're basically trying to make an argument similar to "we make the footballs, so we know more about how to throw them than the quarterbacks who actually do it".

You're talking about young men getting sex, and now you're talking about them getting first dates.

I never talked about sex.

You seem to discount that some young men ask out women they already know and have known for a while - young women who actually have an idea whether those young men are able to fix an edible dinner, who can tell from seeing them daily whether they're doing laundry, who maybe have been to their apartments or dorm rooms and know whether they vacuum or wash dishes.
In college, I dated men I already knew from class, or from shared activities.  I knew way more about them than just their looks.

How many of those guys you actually agreed to date were ugly, timid, broke, poorly dressed and awkward?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.2.205  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.204    last year

Eh, when I was a teenager my girlfriend hung out at my house so yes, she saw how I lived and conducted myself.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.206  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @7.2.204    last year
The comedy of the phrase "what women want" aside, how many times have you asked a woman on a date and how many of those times were you successful? You're basically trying to make an argument similar to "we make the footballs, so we know more about how to throw them than the quarterbacks who actually do it".

How do you reason that?

Seems to me that women would be better authorities on what women want and men would be better authorities on what men want.   A woman need not be practiced in asking women for a date to know what women want in a man.   I think being a woman / man is far more important than being experienced in dating women / men.

What works for a man to get a date with a woman is not necessarily the same as what women want.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.2.207  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.206    last year
What works for a man to get a date with a woman is not necessarily the same as what women want.

Yup. A woman accepting a date hopes a man will have traits that she wants. She doesn't know, but she's willing to give him a chance.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.2.208  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.206    last year

There is a well worn trope within psychological studies that during their lives women tend to be primarily attracted to three different kinds of men. 1. Firstly, in their youth, a studly manly type whether an athlete or a tough guy, but of the physical type that will produce "breed" strong attractive offspring. 2. The good provider. A stable man who will care for them and their offspring until they are independent. 3. The good companion who will endulge them with a good life. This is often a younger man who helps them spend their first husband's life savings. Yes, this is simplistic, but there is lots of generalized truth within it...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.2.209  cjcold  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2    10 months ago

Competition is what all animals engage in from the moment of birth.

Make no mistake. Humans are animals just like all other beasts.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
7.2.210  mocowgirl  replied to  cjcold @7.2.209    10 months ago
Make no mistake. Humans are animals just like all other beasts.

Some more so than others and should probably be avoided if a person treasures their own mental and physical health.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.2.211  cjcold  replied to  mocowgirl @7.2.210    10 months ago

Yep, some animals are nicer than others.

One dog loves you, another dog... not so much. 

It's all about personalities. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Jack_TX @7    last year
When we send young men into a competitive environment without any sort of idea about how to generate any success whatsoever, it goes badly.  Yes, they blame other people.  And they are correct in doing so. 

Wow, way to bail the pussies out lol. 

We ARE ALL thrown into the meatgrinder that is life. 99% of us come out fine. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.3.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.3    last year
Wow, way to bail the pussies out lol.  We ARE ALL thrown into the meatgrinder that is life. 99% of us come out fine. 

Well.... 1 in 7 American adults has to be medicated for depression, so I'm not sure your numbers work out at all.

So all those statistics on everything from domestic violence to wealth inequality are just made up?   How does that work, exactly?

That doesn't mention the plummeting stats on sex in America. 

washington-post-its-all-young-peoples-fault-2.JPG

So it might just be possible that all the shit that applied to you and me way back in the 1900s isn't actually the same now.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.3.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.3.1    last year

Interesting paragraph from your link, Jack.

One final factor that may be affecting Americans' sexual habits at all ages is technology. "There are a lot more things to do at 10 o'clock at night now than there were 20 years ago," Twenge said. "Streaming video, social media, console games, everything else."

Young men may not be getting laid because they're not even trying to.  Their eyes are glued to a screen.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.3.3  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.3.2    last year
Young men may not be getting laid because they're not even trying to.  Their eyes are glued to a screen.

That's absolutely part of it.  Although there is a downward spiral there in the idea that video games give them a place to hide from having to talk to women, so they never learn to talk to women, which makes them want to avoid having to talk to women, so they play more games, etc, etc, etc. 

We haven't even discussed the horrific impacts of social media.  The studies on that are alarming.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.3.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.3.3    last year

See, now there's the respectful discussion I tried to have from the beginning.

We can agree here.  They aren't learning to interact face-to-face.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.3.5  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.3.4    last year
They aren't learning to interact face-to-face.

Exactly.  Yes ma'am.  

We don't talk to them about how to do that, and if they're brave enough to take a chance and it doesn't go 100% perfectly they get crucified.  We call them anything from "toxic" to "creepy" or worse.

When you are a man talking to women you don't know, even under the best of circumstances there is little room for error and generally a low probability of success anyway.  So if trying and failing has such severe consequences, they stop trying.

I used to coach 7th grade football.  In Texas at that age, this was 90% of the boys in that grade.  We might have 120 boys in the 7th grade and 105 or so on the team.  In my district, that was the first year of secondary school, so along about October they all experienced their first school dance.  

We required every boy on the football team to attend the dance with a date that was not their sister/cousin/other cop-out person.  I would chaperone the dance, and they were required to bring their date over to me and introduce her.  I obviously knew most of these girls already, but we were teaching social skills.

The moms & dads thought it was great.  The mommies (very different thing from moms) were horrified. 

But we were intentionally creating a training ground for our guys.  Everybody in school knew they all had to ask a girl to the dance.  So they all had to overcome their fears together, in an environment where everybody expected them to be awkward anyway.  What they didn't realize was that almost all of the girls wanted very much to be asked, so their success rate was always likely to be really high.

Now, obviously something like that isn't scalable.  But we can start to change the way we think about how we view these boys.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.3.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jack_TX @7.3.5    last year

I think that's a good idea.

When I was in undergrad, there was a dinner to which some students were invited that was meant to polish social skills - how to place your utensils to indicate that you were finished with your meal, how to place your napkin, which fork to use for each course, etc.  I think that would be a good idea for most students, and useful not just in dating, but in business dinners, travel, and so forth.  It's the sort of thing you'd hope most kids learn at home, but many don't.  I believe it was likely taught in home ec, but those classes have mostly gone by the wayside, and not many boys took them, anyway.

A yearly dance or dinner (or both) with adult guidance in the social graces in every middle or high school seems like an achievable goal.  No electronics allowed in sight.  Model making introductions, making small talk, how to dress (especially tying a tie).

As far as guys being called "toxic" or "creepy", I have to disagree.  I've only ever heard them called so if they can't take a polite "no" for an answer, or if they approach in a very inappropriate manner, such as with overtly sexual talk right off the bat.  And some guys do that.

Something I've noticed from talking to my son is that kids (or at least the ones he knows) seem to now hate and do anything to avoid attention.  When I was in school, we had a large choir and even larger band.  My son's high school is a lot bigger than mine was, but the choir and band aren't half the size ours was.  I asked him why more kids didn't participate in either.  "Because who wants to get up there where people can see you?  That's embarrassing."  I only remember the soloists being nervous before a concert.  We weren't nearly so scared of being seen as kids today seem to be.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
7.3.7  Jack_TX  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.3.6    last year
We weren't nearly so scared of being seen as kids today seem to be.

Excellent point.

But we didn't run the risk of an embarrassing video going viral on Instagram.  

There are interesting studies about large scale behavioral changes in young people that began to appear at the same time as the iPhone.  I'm not sure that correlation necessarily represents causation on the matter, but that seems to be a prevailing theory.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.3.8  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.3.6    last year
how to place your utensils to indicate that you were finished with your meal, how to place your napkin, which fork to use for each course, etc.  I think that would be a good idea for most students, and useful not just in dating, but in business dinners, travel, and so forth

huh?

what about opening a non-screw off beer bottle cap with a bic lighter or rolling a 1 paper joint?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7.3.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @7.3.8    last year
what about opening a non-screw off beer bottle cap with a bic lighter or rolling a 1 paper joint

Disposable lighters aren't environmentally responsible, 1 paper joints burn too fast and unevenly, better to know how to avoid being short papers.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
7.3.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @7.3.8    last year

Also useful, in a slightly less formal setting.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.3.11  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.3.9    last year
1 paper joints burn too fast and unevenly

yeah right, you should probably stick to your field of expertise...

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
7.3.12  mocowgirl  replied to  Jack_TX @7.3.3    10 months ago
Although there is a downward spiral there in the idea that video games give them a place to hide from having to talk to women, so they never learn to talk to women, which makes them want to avoid having to talk to women, so they play more games, etc, etc, etc. 

If the goal is having a meaningful conversation, how does talking to women differ from talking to men?

Most children are not segregated by sex in grade school.  Why aren't boys already talking to girls from at least the age of 5 years old?  

If the conversation is only happening because of sexual interest, then if the target isn't sexually attracted to the speaker, the conversation is usually ended ASAP because there is no enjoyment in the interaction.  This applies to both males and females trying to start a conversation that can feel predatory to the person targeted.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
7.3.13  Thrawn 31  replied to  Jack_TX @7.3.3    10 months ago

Didn't see this post 7 months ago because I don't login often and don't follow up old threads. But this was an awesome convo between you and sandy and I think really got to the heart of the issue.  Perhaps I was a bit... harsh.. in my initial response. Honestly sad that I didn't see it til 7 months later.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
8  Bob Nelson    last year
They are man-boys who maintain a teenager’s sharp sense of self-absorbed grievance long after adolescence; they exhibit a combination of childish insecurity and lethally bold arrogance...

... on every online forum.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
12  Thrawn 31    last year

Read the article and it is exactly right. These guys are a bunch complete faggots. Nothing to contribute, no useful skills, and have  the idea that they are owed something. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
13  afrayedknot    last year

So many incels…

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.1  devangelical  replied to  afrayedknot @13    last year

seems as though there's a severe shortage of women willing to submit to fascist troglodytes...

 
 
 
Scheidde
Freshman Silent
14  Scheidde     10 months ago
These kinds of narcissistic nut job all seem to have been created by liberal ideas that started popping up in our public schools in the late 70's...Ideas that became even more prevalent as the decades passed....The idea that you are special, the idea that you can do or become anything you desire, the idea that you are individually important to the World, no score sports games, everyone gets a trophy, everyone deserves unearned respect...Ideas put forth by moron liberalized Marxist moron teachers...The same teachers that now have pride and BLM flags in their classrooms... Radicalized leftists...
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
14.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Scheidde @14    10 months ago
These kinds of narcissistic nut job all seem to have been created by liberal ideas that started popping up in our public schools in the late 70's..

I am married to a narcissistic, psychotic nut job.  He was born in 1947.  He was a first-born son and the first-born grandson.  He was spoiled rotten by his family, but remembers every little slight where he was not the golden child.  He was rejected by his peers, but I suspect that I am getting a very one-sided view knowing what I now know and what I have experienced living with him.  There is absolutely nothing that this man would not do to anyone if he thought he could get by with it - nothing.  He perceives everyone as his enemy.

I have spent over 3 years researching what is known about dark personality traits.  There are no clear-cut answers to the role of nature vs. nurture.  There is hope that brain scans might be beneficial in understanding the areas that control emotions to identify if there are connections missing or damaged.  Researching brain damage and personality changes caused by aging might give some insight on optimal brain function and lead to medical treatment that is beneficial to the individual and society.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.2  Tessylo  replied to  Scheidde @14    10 months ago

what a bunch of hatred, ignorance and lies

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
14.3  mocowgirl  replied to  Scheidde @14    10 months ago
These kinds of narcissistic nut job all seem to have been created by liberal ideas that started popping up in our public schools in the late 70's..

I'm going to post today's video from Sam Vaknin that might give anyone interested into the mindset of narcissists some insight into why our society must take the rise of NPD seriously.  This is a mental illness that to date is untreatable with therapy or drugs.  The people with NPD are extremely dangerous to the mental and physical health of anyone who has to live or work with them.  They live in a world of their own making - reality has no place in their life.

Narcissists cannot, and never will be, someone that is safe to date or marry.  Love cannot cure narcissism, but loving a narcissist is a one way trip to never-ending Hell on Earth.

Abuse can be harsh treatment, but it can equally be spoiling a child.  However, many children have been abused by their parents and don't acquire NPD.  It may have a genetic component that is activated by the primary caregiver.  The primary caregiver is usually the mother, but it does not have to be.  If the primary caregiver is a daycare worker, it can be that person who sets up NPD in the child.

I have an adult daughter with NPD.  I was her primary caregiver.  I have spent years trying to remember all of the ways I might have let her down in some way.  One of my primary guesses is allowing her (at 3 yrs of age) to spend a week with my mother-in-law and my 16 year old brother-in-law molesting her.  There was a drastic personality change after that, but of course there would be.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
14.4  seeder  Hallux  replied to  Scheidde @14    10 months ago
The idea that you are special, the idea that you can do or become anything you desire, the idea that you are individually important to the World, ...

Sounds like a 'manifest of destiny' for 'american exceptionalism' ... /S

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
15  mocowgirl    10 months ago
What we can   do, however, is start talking more about the specific problem of dangerous male immaturity without falling into endless loops about gun control, public health, or “toxic masculinity.” We can, in schools and colleges, pay closer attention to the boys and young men who seem to be sliding toward darkness, perhaps with more attempts to pull them toward a community or into mentorship with older men. At the least, we should be able to find a way to engage in gentle interventions early rather than face more drastic consequences later. As Enzensberger presciently warned nearly two decades ago: “It is difficult to talk about the loser, and it is stupid not to.”

There are schools in the US that are requesting staff psychiatrists for grade school students.  That may be the best way to engage younger children who are being the victim or perpetrator of bullying or other anti-social behaviors.  

I believe that it would be best for professionals to determine if the child would be best served in supervised play groups, adult mentoring or one on one therapy.  Keep in mind, that the children that are being forced to interact with the victim/perpetrator could be mentally/physically harmed by being forced to interact with someone they would choose to avoid. This is bypassing our instinct to avoid what our brain tells us is dangerous.

If the child is mentally ill, then the only recourse should be professional treatment.  No child or adult should be forced to interact with anyone who is mentally ill.  If a trained professional can't help the individual, there is no reason to expect anyone else to be able to.  They are not only risking their lives, but they are also wasting them.  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
16  mocowgirl    9 months ago
The advances of women’s rights are especially terrifying to a certain cohort of the Lost Boys, but such progress was necessary and irrevocable, and society cannot be held hostage to the insecurities of a small group of males in arrested adolescence, no matter how dangerous they may be.

What could possibly be more common in the US than blaming women for men's problems?

Because of all of the hoopla about population decline in all industrialized nations (except the US which relies on an open border to increase population), I have researched why even married couples are opting to be childfree.  It might surprise some people, but women opting out of marriage is nothing new, nor is being childfree.  This has been going on for centuries.  Being single meant the right to work and keep their own wages and to own their property among other things.  Married women had few, or any rights, and were pretty much owned by their husband.

So what has caused the ever-rising rates of narcissism in males that make them believe that they are entitled to have anything and everything they want?  Including a girl/woman to satisfy their sexual needs, be their mother and be their whipping boy?  Social media?  Hollywood movies that depict stalking or being the lovable nerd as ways to trap/entice a sexual conquest?

Healthy relationships, that last, are based on friendship, respect and commonalities.  Unhealthy relationships, based on sexual attraction, usually end in very unhealthy ways.

In the case of having any kind of relationship with a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder - avoid it like your life depends on it because it does.  

21 Truths About People Who Don't Have Children | Psychology Today

3. A high rate of childlessness is nothing new. As Chrastil noted, “widespread childlessness has been a long-standing reality in northwestern European towns and cities from around 1500 onward.” There was one exception: “The baby boom was an anomaly, an interlude that lasted about 20 years. Then, childlessness returned, more controversial and openly debated than ever before.”

4. Childlessness is not just a Western phenomenon. “Childlessness is a feature of all cultures, with different expectations of it at different times and places.”

7. During the Reformation (1517-1648), “religious, legal, familiar, and cultural pressures [were] designed…to ensure that women would reproduce and do so within acceptable parameters.” But the fact that these pressures were deemed necessary testifies to "the  fear  that women might somehow opt out.”

8. In the 1600s, single women without children “could be suspected of witchcraft and hanged for the offense.”

9. The stereotype of childless women as “having too much fun for their own good” has been around for centuries. Chrastil found an example in Adam Smith’s   The Wealth of Nations .

10. Between 1500 and 1800, women more often expressed skepticism about   marriage   than children. Chrastil cites a pamphlet from 1707 titled, “The Fifteen Comforts of Living a Single Life.” Another publication, “Good Advice to the Ladies to Keep Single,” made the rounds in 1739.

20. “Just like 150 years ago…childless women in the twenty-first century are more highly educated, less religious, more committed to their careers, less traditional in   gender   roles, and more urban than mothers.”

21. Today, “childless women earn more money than mothers at almost all income levels, with the exception of partnered mothers earning in the top 10 percent of women’s incomes.” They “control far more wealth than mothers do,” too.
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
16.1  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @16    9 months ago
Being single meant the right to work and keep their own wages and to own their property among other things.  Married women had few, or any rights, and were pretty much owned by their husband.

One example of what marriage meant to women in the good old days.  

How many men think it should be the same in 2023?  

The struggle for married women’s rights, circa 1880s | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

In the early nineteenth century, married women in the US were legally subordinate to their husbands. Wives could not own their own property, keep their own wages, or enter into contracts. Beginning in 1839, states slowly began to enact Married Women’s Property Acts to allow women more control over their property and finances.

In the late nineteenth century, however, Anne Brown Adams, a daughter of the abolitionist John Brown, wrote to a friend that reform was slow and did not necessarily change behaviors inside the home.

Excerpt

The struggle for a married woman’s rights will be a longer and a harder fought battle than any other that the world has ever known. Men have been taught that they are   absolute   monarchs in their families, (even in a republican country,) ever since the world began, and that to kill a wife   by   inches,   is not murder, women are taught from infancy that to betray by look or word or even to mention to an intimate friend the secrets of their married life, is worse than disgraceful,   Therein   lies   the   power   of the man, He knows that no matter   what   he does, the woman will keep silent as the grave

I could tell you things that have come under my observation, that would make the blood boil in your veins, And these things are going on day after day without let or hinderance. “Wives be obedient to your husbands in all things!”

Women are taught that their only hope of heaven, is to “ endure   to the end,” That it is a religious duty to “submit themselves to their husbands in all things,” I know a man who tells his wife “I   own   you , I have got a   deed   (marriage license and certificate)   to   you   and got it   recorded , I have a right to do what I please to you,” And the law of a Christian land says   she   shall   submit , to indecencies that would make a respectable devil blush for shame, Man, who is said to have been created in the image of God, is the lowest animal in the world, and the most cruel. It shatters my faith in the goodness of God, so much that it makes me tremble for my own reason, at times.

A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT IS AVAILABLE  HERE .
 
 

Who is online

Drinker of the Wry
Tessylo
CB
Just Jim NC TttH
Jeremy Retired in NC
Hallux
fineline
bugsy
Kavika


54 visitors