Raising Boys

Mott the Hoople

Mott the Hoople

Sweet Jane
I read this article (that's a couple of minutes I'll never get back) and this is the sort of academic crap coming out of social scientist that just makes you want to fall on the ground laughing your ass off at them for having this scewed far left academic point of view. Then they wonder why those of us with real scientific backgrounds scoff at them.


I mean there isn't a bloody thing in this article that is supported by empirical fact or evidence. It's just junk pop psychology of the brand that's popular with far left ivy tower academics. This is the sort of crap that drives anyone with two functioning testicles and a brain capable of objective thought crazy.

The problem is this non-sense is used effectively by Republicans (and I can hardly blame them) to paint the entire Democratic party as a bunch of crying, snowflake vaignas.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/pos...ce-masculinity-feminism-203020220.html?bcmt=1
 
Since the article ends with boys shouldn't have sex until they are mature, I am not sure this isn't straight from the GOP Poes
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I read this article (that's a couple of minutes I'll never get back) and this is the sort of academic crap coming out of social scientist that just makes you want to fall on the ground laughing your ass off at them for having this scewed far left academic point of view. Then they wonder why those of us with real scientific backgrounds scoff at them.


I mean there isn't a bloody thing in this article that is supported by empirical fact or evidence. It's just junk pop psychology of the brand that's popular with far left ivy tower academics. This is the sort of crap that drives anyone with two functioning testicles and a brain capable of objective thought crazy.

The problem is this non-sense is used effectively by Republicans (and I can hardly blame them) to paint the entire Democratic party as a bunch of crying, snowflake vaignas.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/pos...ce-masculinity-feminism-203020220.html?bcmt=1
Click to expand...

Well duh, you are suddenly woke, well done!
 
Kacper said:
Since the article ends with boys shouldn't have sex until they are mature, I am not sure this isn't straight from the GOP Poes
Click to expand...

Hmm. I thought manly Republican men were supposed to have sex as soon as they were physically able, with as many girls and/or women as possible, before marriage. Whereas Republican girls/women are to remain chaste until marriage, but somehow still know how to "do stuff" so their husbands are satisfied.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Hmm. I thought manly Republican men were supposed to have sex as soon as they were physically able, with as many girls and/or women as possible, before marriage. Whereas Republican girls/women are to remain chaste until marriage, but somehow still know how to "do stuff" so their husbands are satisfied.
Click to expand...

If you had stopped at "Hmm, I thought..." you might have made a more comprehensive argument, instead of coming across as an idiot.

But after all, it was your decision. :palm:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I read this article (that's a couple of minutes I'll never get back) and this is the sort of academic crap coming out of social scientist that just makes you want to fall on the ground laughing your ass off at them for having this scewed far left academic point of view. Then they wonder why those of us with real scientific backgrounds scoff at them.
Click to expand...

So rather than screaming at the screen, could you tell us precisely what you think is wrong with it?

I found it very sympathetic to young men. I'm happy that I'm not one. Why's that? Because trying to live up to two opposing ideals -- being an athletic, studly, masculine, American man -- while simultaneously being expected (by American women) to be sensitive, able to discuss feelings as well as hockey scores, gentle, nurturing, and "nice". Lotta shit to dump on a kid who's already dealing with getting through school, finding his way away from the family, and the volcano of hormones that come with adolescence.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
So rather than screaming at the screen, could you tell us precisely what you think is wrong with it?

I found it very sympathetic to young men. I'm happy that I'm not one. Why's that? Because trying to live up to two opposing ideals -- being an athletic, studly, masculine, American man -- while simultaneously being expected (by American women) to be sensitive, able to discuss feelings as well as hockey scores, gentle, nurturing, and "nice". Lotta shit to dump on a kid who's already dealing with getting through school, finding his way away from the family, and the volcano of hormones that come with adolescence.
Click to expand...

What the fuck makes you think that the two ideals aren't Sympatico or were you suddenly appointed to a committee that now determines how the males in society are supposed to be?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
So rather than screaming at the screen, could you tell us precisely what you think is wrong with it?

I found it very sympathetic to young men. I'm happy that I'm not one. Why's that? Because trying to live up to two opposing ideals -- being an athletic, studly, masculine, American man -- while simultaneously being expected (by American women) to be sensitive, able to discuss feelings as well as hockey scores, gentle, nurturing, and "nice". Lotta shit to dump on a kid who's already dealing with getting through school, finding his way away from the family, and the volcano of hormones that come with adolescence.
Click to expand...
Because it’s not how males are biologically hardwired nor females for that matter. Women are biologically hardwired to seek the best males who are the strongest, have the highest status and are the best providers. Even young women are generally speaking not interested in boys or beta males. Experiment after experiment shows on internet dating sites that 85% of females are only interested in 15% of the males on those sites. Males compete, particularly unattached males, compete ferociously among themselves to be in that top 15%. Sexual frustration is part of male nature that young men just have to learn to live with.

Males aggressive nature is biologically driven. Sociological theory can’t change that. The best it can do is harness that energy productively. This is why military tradition and ritual is so popular with young men. It is a time tested and proven method to turn beta boys into alpha males. Young men with military training do far better at attracting females then men without it.

So in other words gender equality only exists in the law as it should. It doesn’t exist biologically. Gender differences are real, are not neutral and at the extremes have profound affects on populations. So to teach young men that genders are equal in anything other than fair treatment as individuals is harmful. Particularly for young males as it’s simply not the way biology works.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Because it’s not how males are biologically hardwired nor females for that matter. Women are biologically hardwired to seek the best males who are the strongest, have the highest status and are the best providers. Even young women are generally speaking not interested in boys or beta males. Experiment after experiment shows on internet dating sites that 85% of females are only interested in 15% of the males on those sites. Males compete, particularly unattached males, compete ferociously among themselves to be in that top 15%. Sexual frustration is part of male nature that young men just have to learn to live with.

Males aggressive nature is biologically driven. Sociological theory can’t change that. The best it can do is harness that energy productively. This is why military tradition and ritual is so popular with young men. It is a time tested and proven method to turn beta boys into alpha males. Young men with military training do far better at attracting females then men without it.

So in other words gender equality only exists in the law as it should. It doesn’t exist biologically. Gender differences are real, are not neutral and at the extremes have profound affects on populations. So to teach young men that genders are equal in anything other than fair treatment as individuals is harmful. Particularly for young males as it’s simply not the way biology works.
Click to expand...

Give that MAN a cigar. :hand:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So in other words gender equality only exists in the law as it should. It doesn’t exist biologically. Gender differences are real, are not neutral and at the extremes have profound affects on populations. So to teach young men that genders are equal in anything other than fair treatment as individuals is harmful. Particularly for young males as it’s simply not the way biology works.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see where you are coming from now. Thanks.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Hmm. I thought manly Republican men were supposed to have sex as soon as they were physically able, with as many girls and/or women as possible, before marriage. Whereas Republican girls/women are to remain chaste until marriage, but somehow still know how to "do stuff" so their husbands are satisfied.
Click to expand...

That's what you get for thinking, ho.
 
Sorry, Buttyurt, not interested. Won't be tomorrow either, or next year.

J7VL9gz.jpg
 
Yaya said:
What about men or boys who date/marry dominant women? My cousin for example definitely doesn't wear the pants....
Click to expand...

Even then gender differences are exhibited. If you watch your cousins domineering wife you may observe she attempts to vociferously control and criticize everything about his life without ever having to actually make a decision. If she’s truly dominant you’ll also probably observe she’s not only the decision maker but a deeply unhappy person.

So domineering as she may seem if she is relatively well adjusted and content in their marriage then I would suggest that appearances can be deceiving and you may be selling your cousin short.
 
I did not read the link, but the social sciences are just like the physical sciences in that some researchers are crappy, some are good, and a few are outstanding. I personally put myself in the fair to middling territory…at best! Wrapping up, anyone engaged in the pursuit of scholarly knowledge gets a hat tip from me.

In general, I do not pay too much attention to all this blather about how certain people are supposed to act, and trivial discussions about proper gender role. For me, the best teacher has been life experience. Not People Magazine, not TV armchair psychologists, and certainly not geeks from an Academic journal. To me, it comes down to just being a normal dude, trying to not be a jerk, trying to have some common courtesy, and above all else having self-respect. It all seems to sort itself out. I do not think it takes rocket scientists to put it all together!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top