... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Feminist ideology and the effect it has had upon society
About this forum
This is an example of one thread - Feminism - which has recently been turned into its own subforum. Thus we are currently breaking that very interesting, but very long, thread into sub-discussions where appropriate. This will leave the original thread with a lot of views while the new threads will apparently have fewer. They'll begin to catch up though.

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 06 Dec 2013, 14:15

Not sure if I am convinced.

Do the woman want to be with the professional sportsman because he is taking risk or despite the fact he is taking risk... and they are valuing other things about him, his physical fitness, his money, his drive or things that are not related to his job.

Are rugby-players or freeclimbers more popular with the women than tennis-players? I do not have any data on that. Boris Becker seems to be quite popular.

Are roofers popular with the women than other craftsmen? Smokers? Again I don't have the data.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 06 Dec 2013, 14:53

Also in case of the professional sportsmen and so on there might be a big difference between the person's job and his character.

In my limited experience people holding risky jobs often put great emphasis on planing as to minimize the risks. Thus their behaviour is not as risk-taking as it looks from the outside.

Unlike the hobby-sportsmen the professional sportsman might not see himself as a risk-taker but as a professional with intensive training, who knows excactly what he is doing... and this might be the opinion of the women attracted to him.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Elliott » 06 Dec 2013, 19:46

Caleb wrote:professional sportsmen, entrepreneurs and criminals never seem to want for women


Yessica wrote:In my limited experience people holding risky jobs often put great emphasis on planning as to minimize the risks. Thus their behaviour is not as risk-taking as it looks from the outside.

Unlike the hobby-sportsman the professional sportsman might not see himself as a risk-taker but as a professional with intensive training, who knows exactly what he is doing... and this might be the opinion of the women attracted to him.

I'd say you've answered your own question. What attracts women to successful risk-taking men is that those men have mastered a situation, done the planning, thought ahead, beaten the obstacles, taken the risk, and won. They're not idiots who decided to risk putting a fork in the toaster to see what happened: they're guys who have proven how capable they are by taking a risk and managing it.

This (might) explain women's attraction to entrepreneurs and sportsmen, but it doesn't explain those women who are attracted to prisoners on Death Row. By definition, those men are not successful risk-takers: they took a gamble, and the law won. However, what their incarceration does prove is that they had the guts to defy authority and run a huge risk. They didn't succeed, but they had the guts to try. Of course, their failure might well elicit women's sympathy: the woman gets a guy who is simultaneously brave and vulnerable.

If the above theory is correct, I'd guess we are talking about two types of women. Those attracted to successful risk-takers will be sensible, and they will admire the man for running risks and managing things, but they will still hate it when he runs a risk again. They know he's got balls; they'd rather he didn't endanger himself to prove it again.

The second type is the women attracted to Death Row inmates. These will not be sensible women. They will be women who love emotional rollercoasters and absolutely do want the man to run risks again and again, not only for the emotional thrill but also because, the more he does it, the more vulnerable he becomes and therefore the more he needs their nurturing.

One final point: in tribal times, there would have been a special attraction for women in the man who defied society's rules and did his own thing. Maybe he'd fail, or maybe he'd succeed and bring in a new lease of life for the tribe. Associating with such a man would be risky for a woman, but it might also be her ticket to being queen. In any case, the fact that a man is independent enough to be like that will, I am sure, be attractive to a lot of women - and no man is more independent of society's rules than a serial killer.

Also, women tend to be attracted to male mystery, because it engages their emotional intelligence and gives them a puzzle to solve. A serial killer, or any form of psychopath, is an extremely mysterious character.

These theories are just off the top of my head, so, if they are nonsense, please forgive me.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 06 Dec 2013, 20:10

Elliott wrote:I'd say you've answered your own question. What attracts women to successful risk-taking men is that those men have mastered a situation, done the planning, thought ahead, beaten the obstacles, taken the risk, and won. They're not idiots who decided to risk putting a fork in the toaster to see what happened: they're guys who have proven how capable they are by taking a risk and managing it.
[...]
If the above theory is correct, I'd guess we are talking about two types of women. Those attracted to successful risk-takers will be sensible, and they will admire the man for running risks and managing things, but they will still hate it when he runs a risk again. They know he's got balls; they'd rather he didn't endanger himself to prove it again.


How I hate to say that: You might have a point here.

Edit: The reason why I hate to say it by the way is not that I want you to be wrong... but because I realized that we women hate risk taking behaviour may be not as much as we think we do... as long as the guy has the smarts and planfulness to beat the risks.... and is not going to take the same risks again... and that makes me feel foolish.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Andrea » 06 Dec 2013, 20:21

I'm with Yessica - I have never, ever been attracted to dangerous men. One of the main reasons I wanted to be with my husband is because he's not violent at all. He's extremely intelligent and we're best friends.

Men often say they're "biologically inclined" to do this or that, which to an extent is true. That being said, however, I refuse to condone or excuse behaviour that is downright animalistic. We are humans, and therefore, we should be above the base carnal urges of our ancestors and use our minds more. We have feelings, thoughts, we ought to think of others and not only our own selfish desires.

Dalrymple sums it up succinctly:

“It is only by having desire thwarted, and thereby learning to control it — in other words, by becoming civilised — that men become fully human.”


If I've learned anything through the hundreds of books I've read it is this: men and women are weak, and their greatness weakness is sex. Yes, both. Women, however hard they try not to, cannot truly have sex without any emotion. We are by our very nature emotional creatures. Whilst the baseness in men generally crave sexual possession of another, and to emit their seed, women have an innate yearning to be desired and loved.

At least, that's what it's supposed to be like, though more and more women seem bent on using men for their own sexual gratification and power. Immature woman now casually dismiss men who look normal and seek male model types as much as immature men seek "hot" girls. I think both are completely misguided, vain, and superficial - not something conducive towards a fulfilling relationship! Men and women are using each other now in abominable ways, and it seems as though the vast majority of people are not having genuine relationships.

The questions that surround sexuality reminds me of another quote, this one by philosopher Robert C. Solomon:

"Sexuality is primarily a means of communicating with other people, a way of talking to them, of expressing our feelings about ourselves and them. It is essentially a language, a body language, in which one can express gentleness and affection, anger and resentment, superiority and dependence far more succinctly than would be possible verbally, where expressions are unavoidably abstract and often clumsy."


I think many women have become hopelessly muddled since the 1960s, and can no longer successfully choose a good partner. I have seen no end of women make the terrible mistake of forming a hopeless attachment to a thug, "to save him". She's simply shooting herself in the foot.

The whole attraction to death row inmates just doesn't make sense to me, and I think those women must be deeply disturbed or extremely lonely to go after such specimens.

As for man's responsibility, my opinion is as follows: if a man do impregnate a woman, he damn well better do the honourable thing. And women damn well better choose an honourable man. Anything else leads to near certain trouble. Why don't we just hold people personally accountable for their bad decisions? Worked well enough in the past.
Andrea
 
Posts: 158
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 21:55
Location: England

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 06 Dec 2013, 20:34

Andrea wrote:I'm with Yessica - I have never, ever been attracted to dangerous men. One of the main reasons I wanted to be with my husband is because he's not violent at all. He's extremely intelligent and we're best friends.


One thing I really do like about my husband (among other things) is his patience and the fact that he never loses his calm. Also I can not remember ever having seen him enraged.

I think I could never be with one of those thuggish guys who beat their wifes or yell at them. I am not attracted to dangerous men at all. In fact I am afraid of them.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Andrea » 06 Dec 2013, 21:17

Yessica wrote:...Also I can not remember ever having seen him enraged.

I think I could never be with one of those thuggish guys who beat their wifes or yell at them. I am not attracted to dangerous men at all. In fact I am afraid of them.


I've also never seen my husband enraged. Perhaps you and I simply don't have the genes (?) to make brutish types appealing to us? I have some girl friends who *only* seem to be attracted to "bad boys" and then they wonder why they get hurt...
Andrea
 
Posts: 158
Joined: 30 Jul 2011, 21:55
Location: England

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Caleb » 07 Dec 2013, 05:29

Yessica wrote:Not sure if I am convinced.

Do the woman want to be with the professional sportsman because he is taking risk or despite the fact he is taking risk... and they are valuing other things about him, his physical fitness, his money, his drive or things that are not related to his job.

Are rugby-players or freeclimbers more popular with the women than tennis-players? I do not have any data on that. Boris Becker seems to be quite popular.

Are roofers popular with the women than other craftsmen? Smokers? Again I don't have the data.


Not sure if serious.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 07 Dec 2013, 07:49

Caleb wrote:
Yessica wrote:Not sure if I am convinced.

Do the woman want to be with the professional sportsman because he is taking risk or despite the fact he is taking risk... and they are valuing other things about him, his physical fitness, his money, his drive or things that are not related to his job.


Not sure if serious.


Yes, of course I am.

In case of a sportsman my definition of drive would be: the hard work that he needs to invest in order to reach his level of physical fitness, the discipline, reading and learning about new techniques of his sport, working on his character to mend flaws such as anger, not being able to take orders*, not being able to work in groups and so on.

A man can be driven without taking any risks (and of course he can also take risk without being driven).

Examples for men who take risks without being driven:
* Smokers
* Afromentioned guy who puts a fork in the toaster to see what happens
* Unsafe drivers
* People who pick fights at the pub

Examples for people who have drive but do not take risks:
* Successfull rowers
* Successfull tennis players
* One could probably say "The risk they are taking is not investing enough in things other than their sport", but this is not even true. I know some people who did quite well in sports and at the same time graduated from good colleges. So if their sports career fails - no big problem
* Chess players
* Succesfull farmers
* College professors of boring, non controversial fields
* Genealogists

I am married now but if I had to choose a man and the only two choices available to me were: a) the college professor of a boring field, who is a driven genealogist in his freetime (driven but not taking any risks) or b) the guy who never held a stable job, smokes, drinks, picks fights with random strangers and puts a fork in the toaster (risk-taking but not driven) I would for sure choose a.

* Yes, being stereotypical "alpha" and angry is a flaw rather then an asset in my opinion. If a person is angry all his good judgement goes out of the window. It is not a quality a sportsman should posses.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 07 Dec 2013, 08:23

Andrea wrote:I've also never seen my husband enraged. Perhaps you and I simply don't have the genes (?) to make brutish types appealing to us? I have some girl friends who *only* seem to be attracted to "bad boys" and then they wonder why they get hurt...


I had a guy flirting with me once bragging about how he got kicked out of his job because of his anger-management problem. I got away as soon as possible without being to impolite... does this way of flirting appeal to some women? I just don't know...
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Mike » 07 Dec 2013, 09:20

Andrea wrote:I think many women have become hopelessly muddled since the 1960s, and can no longer successfully choose a good partner. I have seen no end of women make the terrible mistake of forming a hopeless attachment to a thug, "to save him". She's simply shooting herself in the foot.

The whole attraction to death row inmates just doesn't make sense to me, and I think those women must be deeply disturbed or extremely lonely to go after such specimens.


I think there's a good deal of truth to this, and this sort of thing has made me think twice about the idea of "opposites attracting". Most people who meet me and my wife actually think of us as opposites, and in a way we are - she's far more liberal than me on just about every issue, she's keen all things craft-related (jewellery-making, pottery, etc), while I'm allergic to anything of the sort, I like jazz, some classical music and occasional thoughtful pop, she listens to Pink.

So wherein lies the similarity? When we met, she's since told me, she thought of me as a "long-term prospect"; most of the men she'd been involved with until then were, to some extent, nihilistic as regarded the future. And the sort of women that Andrea is talking about above I would describe as, ultimately, nihilists. And the men they tend to court certainly are. So in a fundamental sense, even though interests, political outlooks, personal habits etc. can differ and often do (our marriage celebrant, quite cheekily, told us on our wedding day that "these things will add spice to your conversations"), ultimately I think pairing up depends greatly on the extent to which the partners are considering the future.
Mike
 
Posts: 402
Joined: 01 Aug 2011, 11:08
Location: Australia

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 07 Dec 2013, 09:57

Mike wrote: When we met, she's since told me, she thought of me as a "long-term prospect"


A man who is steady / dependable / shares the idea of building a future together is attractive for a woman... at least for me.

My husband and me have different political opinion. I started out left of him, are now more conservative of him. He took that with great stoicism.

We have different interests. For example he likes helicopters, of which I think that they are one of the most boring things ever invented. Whenever he talks about them I try to look interested and nod my head while thinking of something completly different. I feel quite bad about this... but I just cannot get myself to be interested in helicopters. I tried.
I was astonished to find out that most men do not think that they are an ill-chose topic for a conversation. First time he talked with some of my male friends about that I told them "Thanks for pretending to be interested." Much to my surprise they said "Oh, we did not fake interest. It is interesting". You can search far and wide and still not find a woman who shares that passion.

Men and women might just not be born to care for the others interests. Sad as that is.

Most couples I know are a "team" rather than a soulmate. In Germany we say "Unhappy couples look at each other, happy couples look in the same direction". There may be a truth to this.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Gavin » 21 Dec 2013, 17:35

Just on Caleb's post of earlier, I have not re-read it but have been meaning to reply for a week. I think there's a fair bit of truth in it, but I find the distinction between "alpha" and "beta" far too binary. There is every place on the spectrum. Furthermore, there are some women with the sense and sensitivity to reject so-called alpha males for being obnoxious. When those same males choose certain females for superficial reasons they often live to regret it too - we need only look to the rich and famous to see that! Just some thoughts.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Yessica » 21 Dec 2013, 19:30

I have heard the word "alpha" a lot but I am not really sure if I understand what it means and if it means the same to everybody.

Which qualities would a man considered alpha have?

Let's take two examples:

1) guy A is the heir of a fortune and a college professor of history. He earns a lot and is a respected speaker at conferences. He is unassuming and soft-spoken and has never been in a physical fight - could he be possible alpha? High social status but no risk taking
2) guy B is a school dropout, who constanly get's into fist fights, drinks a lot and does not hold a stable job. He has beaten up other men for looking the wrong way at his woman and does not take any nonsense from anybody. Alpha?

... or does it take a guy who combines A's fortune and good job with B's tendency to pick fights in order to be alpha?
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: ... but what about the man's responsibility? (controversial topic)

Postby Paul » 21 Dec 2013, 22:23

I would say that, to a man, a very obvious and seeming positive proof of another man's 'Alpha-ness' is his runaway success with the ladies!

Before one goes into how and why, which are the sub-qualities of alpha males and which may be more precise definitions this raw fact is the most initially obvious. Quite how much females either consciously or sub-consciously notice this I'm not sure, though it would seem inevitable that they do.

Apart from this big factor, other traits would be:

Probably good-looking, though there will be exceptions. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyhow. At least physically imposing in some way.

Well formed and athletic and strong.

Exuding confidence.

Probably intelligent.

A natural leader. Such a man would rise to officer class in the military, be the captain of the sports teams he was in and the leader in any expeditions or other tests of prowess, not necessarily all physical.

All the above will be natural talents, God-given if you like. Maybe what matters most is what such a person does with them.

It doesn't necessarily mean a thug, though thugs are probably strong and somewhat athletic and even good-looking. They're the ones who have then wasted their talents.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

PreviousNext

Return to Feminism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.