The feminization of American Men The feminization of American men started with the masculinization of American women. The frontier was a dangerous place and the females who survived there had to do everything their male counterparts did while also bearing and raising children. These women could not be denied the right to vote, so western states let them vote and a woman served in Congress before eastern states ratified the amendment. She was still feminine though, and voted against joining World War I. She lost the next election to a man. She was resilient though. She rebounded and won her old seat back 22 years later, just in time to be the only dissenting vote about joining World War II. With votes and basic rights like owning houses and working in offices came the bad aspects of masculinity (smoking, drinking, flirting and fighting). World War II put them in the military and previously all-male factories. By 1960 women technically could do anything a man could do, but there were still obvious differences that remained unaddressed. Only men wore pants. Someone invented the pant suit. Only women had long hair. Men started growing long hair. Only women wore jewelry. Thw male metal-based wristwatch and military dogtags started making men comfortable with jewelry. When it reached pierced ears other piercings followed. Suddenly getting other parts pierced became a symbol of masculine toughness until tough men were wearing more jewelry than females. Those things were superficial. The big changes were manufactured through pop culture, especially television. Early tv shows were not conspirators. They just wanted the largest possible audience and that meant children had to be comfortable with the shows and women passionate. Most of the shows were not influential individually, but collectively they taught us how life was supposed to be. The fathers on sitcoms were all soft-hearted. Fred MacMurray, Hugh Beaumont, Robert Young and most acutely Robert Reed never once slapped or spanked any of their brats. Ralph Waite and Michael Landon retconned that to the 1930s and 1870s respectively, giving the impression that your father was awful if he ever touched you in anger. Even the Rifleman, who killed someone in almost every episode, was a loving father everyone wanted. Lost in Space followed the trend while gently warning us of the consequences. Professor Robinson, in the mid-1990s (therefore a teenager you might know in the 1960s) not only never disciplined any of his children but was too soft-hearted to give Dr. Smith the punishment he deserved. Older men didn't watch those stupid shows, but in the 1970s they saw themselves in Archie Bunker and George Jefferson. With his 11 tv shows Norman Lear was trying to give old-fashioned conservative masculine values a knockout blow. He actually got the reverse effect and his political efforts with People for the American Way in the 1980s forced the religious right to go from the silent plurality (Nixon and Pat Buchanan were never great at math) to the noisy challenged consensus. Of course religious men were always the type of fathers portrayed on those tv shows, but the fact those fictional fathers had no religious base for their morality had persuaded that generation to believe wrongly that high levels of morality without faith was attainable (an even bigger threat). In any case the damage was done. Tv fathers continued to be mushy but never religious. They began to tolerate worse things and the gospel of toleration became canon law throughout the press and media. The generation born in the 1980s and later were already being raised in the melded gender roles their parents were converted to. It became a clear majority in the early 2000s and is poised to deliver a fatal blow very soon. In 2008 the US had a choice between an old-line masculine 72-year-old and a largely feminized 47-year-old man. The Democrats didn't need to nominate a 61-year-old masculinized woman because the 47-year-old feminized man was more feminine. Edit / Delete Edit Post Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Blog this Post Today, 01:16 AM #2 Philip2's Avatar Philip2 Philip2 is offline Senior Member Join Date Aug 2012 Location Arizona Posts 3,423 Thanks 120 Thanked 374 Times in 318 Posts Default Quote Originally Posted by 5555 View Post The feminization of American Men The feminization of American men started with the masculinization of American women. The frontier was a dangerous place and the females who survived there had to do everything their male counterparts did while also bearing and raising children. These women could not be denied the right to vote, so western states let them vote and a woman served in Congress before eastern states ratified the amendment. She was still feminine though, and voted against joining World War I. She lost the next election to a man. She was resilient though. She rebounded and won her old seat back 22 years later, just in time to be the only dissenting vote about joining World War II. With votes and basic rights like owning houses and working in offices came the bad aspects of masculinity (smoking, drinking, flirting and fighting). World War II put them in the military and previously all-male factories. By 1960 women technically could do anything a man could do, but there were still obvious differences that remained unaddressed. Only men wore pants. Someone invented the pant suit. Only women had long hair. Men started growing long hair. Only women wore jewelry. Thw male metal-based wristwatch and military dogtags started making men comfortable with jewelry. When it reached pierced ears other piercings followed. Suddenly getting other parts pierced became a symbol of masculine toughness until tough men were wearing more jewelry than females. Those things were superficial. The big changes were manufactured through pop culture, especially television. Early tv shows were not conspirators. They just wanted the largest possible audience and that meant children had to be comfortable with the shows and women passionate. Most of the shows were not influential individually, but collectively they taught us how life was supposed to be. The fathers on sitcoms were all soft-hearted. Fred MacMurray, Hugh Beaumont, Robert Young and most acutely Robert Reed never once slapped or spanked any of their brats. Ralph Waite and Michael Landon retconned that to the 1930s and 1870s respectively, giving the impression that your father was awful if he ever touched you in anger. Even the Rifleman, who killed someone in almost every episode, was a loving father everyone wanted. Lost in Space followed the trend while gently warning us of the consequences. Professor Robinson, in the mid-1990s (therefore a teenager you might know in the 1960s) not only never disciplined any of his children but was too soft-hearted to give Dr. Smith the punishment he deserved. Older men didn't watch those stupid shows, but in the 1970s they saw themselves in Archie Bunker and George Jefferson. With his 11 tv shows Norman Lear was trying to give old-fashioned conservative masculine values a knockout blow. He actually got the reverse effect and his political efforts with People for the American Way in the 1980s forced the religious right to go from the silent plurality (Nixon and Pat Buchanan were never great at math) to the noisy challenged consensus. Of course religious men were always the type of fathers portrayed on those tv shows, but the fact those fictional fathers had no religious base for their morality had persuaded that generation to believe wrongly that high levels of morality without faith was attainable (an even bigger threat). In any case the damage was done. Tv fathers continued to be mushy but never religious. They began to tolerate worse things and the gospel of toleration became canon law throughout the press and media. The generation born in the 1980s and later were already being raised in the melded gender roles their parents were converted to. It became a clear majority in the early 2000s and is poised to deliver a fatal blow very soon. In 2008 the US had a choice between an old-line masculine 72-year-old and a largely feminized 47-year-old man. The Democrats didn't need to nominate a 61-year-old masculinized woman because the 47-year-old feminized man was more feminine.
While I don't agree with all of the religious-oriented stuff in the OP, I agree with the thread in principle. So many young men today are growing up neutered to the point that don't even know the basic genetic differences between men and women that exist - I think the rise of single motherhood, female teachers in the school system, and the lack of positive or realistic male role models (ex. how many kids in the 90s do you think grew up watching Ray Romano in "Everybody Loves Raymond" - the biggest beta male of all time)? Saddest part of it is so many of them - they think this is "normal", or that all of the gender differences that existed for millions of years of evolution somehow just "magically disappeared" in an instant as soon as the social revolution in the 60s and 70s kicked in. I myself never had any positive male role models in my life, so I had to take the time to learn on my own - I feel sorry for all of these poor, neutered guys - nursing their discontent each weekend playing MMO games or watching Japanese anime with their "female friends" (who'd never think of dating them) - instead of setting career goals, getting a little physical activity on occasion and pursuing women. They're about as happy as fish out of water.
Just as Black culture rejected "Middle Class Values" without an alternative was a bad idea - Women's Lib rejects a heterosexual relationship ranting about the unhealthy aspects, little sayings like - a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle and never defined the "Healthy Heterosexual Relationship". Then decades later, the leaders came out of the closet as Lesbian. A husband and father became disposable with pillage divorce laws. Little boys are expected to behave as little girls or take Ritalin. America has indeed become wusified. Solution: 2016 Senator Rand Paul, M.D. / Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Nothing "wus" about them. Moi r > g No
The God I worship believes in giving people free will and many choices, while gently steering or pointing toward best choices. St. Paul wrote that if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her and talked about nature favoring men with short hair. That made it the default choice for most Christians. In the Old Testament Absalom's long hair got him caught in a tree while he fled for his life. He was killed. that's a huge clue for Jews. In any case I was trying to show how the barriers quickly toppled, to the point where even knowing whether a person you just met is male or female requires Sherlock Holmes. Remember the first scenes in Thunderball? That can't happen in the remake.
"nature "favors men with short hair " ? Then why does nature allow it to grow? LOL! If having long hair puts you in danger of being caught by a treeroflol: ) aren't women also in danger of "death by tree" ??? Or doesn't that matter since they're "only" women?? Why do I see those pictures of Jesus with long hair ?? Was he a wimp?
Phil, There is no reason for you to fear strong women. Just stay away from them and they won't hurt you.
No, "real men" is in quotation marks... AND I saw that you can't answer the question, " didn't he preach kindness, gentleness and love ?" (AND he had long hair! The "real man" in the OP would hate him...)
Actually, that's beyond sexist. And if it is based on hard personal experience, then I feel sorry for her.
...but according to feminists the reason we aren't white knights is because we've had bad experiences with women when I've never said anything about having bad experiences with women.To the contrary, I've said I love women. The reason I'm a critic of feminism is because I don't like any supremacist hate movements, not the KKK, not the Skinheads, and not the Feminists.
The problem is, this is true for SOME men, but otherwise it is a generalization. Otherwise men wouldn't be going on strike and to other countries to get away from western women. Of course, feminists can't see the harm they're doing to men and what's more, they don't care.
I don't think she was being sexist. I think she was just mocking what some people consider to be "real man" values.
I've got to say, men with short hair is fairly new. For most history men kept their lock, and wore kilts. - - - Updated - - - What I hate to see are young men who don't know how to use tools, etc.. and have women's hands. Metrosexual males are a total turnoff to real women.
Yes, I was and if those who accuse me of sexism (while screaming sexists ideals) would've/could've taken the time to read the posts(OH MY! TWO WHOLE PAGES!!!!) and could comprehend English they would've known that. I posted all the pertinent posts including the one that says men with long hair (like Jesus had) are wimps.... And those who drool about how "feminine" men are getting are the ones who have absolutely NO knowledge of history...G. Washington wore tight silk pants, lace at his wrists and a wig...as did most of the men at the time....OH! MERCY, HOW did we SURVIVE!!!!!
