Men's Discussion

Post Reply New Topic

Deep down, women feel that they have a right to lie about paternity, in order to get both the best genes and the best care for their children. Otherwise, we wouldn't see so many getting busted by the results of DNA tests on live TV, and so many courts that won't let a man cease support payments for any children he once accepted as his own.

Decent human beings.

You should get to feel just as manly kissing a kitten brother.

Eh, I think this is changing though. It went through the kneejerk overkill as it had to, but people seem to be relaxing around this now - there are men's nights or groups for a lot of organizations, just like women's. There's also a lot of "men only" stuff going on in gay male culture no one wants to scream about being sexist. Plus, the women's discussion forum here isn't women only. Anyone can post there - it's just targeted at women's issues, just like the love and dating is targeted at love/dating. I get on my soapbox about this kind of standard though, even though single-sex exclusionary spaces squick me for queer reasons - women can be sexist and misandrist just as men can be sexist and misogynist, people of colour can be racist just like whites. Similarly men can be feminists, and in favour of gender equality. To insist someone can't be supportive of feminism or gender equality and women's rights because he has a penis is the complete antithesis of the whole idea in my view.

True, but that's more about how culture in general views men, than men themselves. It may also vary via profession - say someone in that crowd is a male firefighter or male paramedic, people may be more likely to hand a potentially injured child to him than a random woman. Unfortunately media also covers a lot more abusers who are male than female, as if female child abusers don't exist. I heard a recent news story about a man working in a childcare place who turned out to be a pedophile and abuser, and much of the concern of the speakers was what effect this would have on decent men who wanted to work with kids - that they didn't all get automatically tarred as abusers just for being men and interested in that field of work. Hopefully people are getting more sane about it as true equality, and not suppression of one gender over another.

I think they'd probably just hand it to the crowd in general, and I think it's just the case that more women will go to look after that child for the short period of time before a man because as you said before, they're more emotionally invested at birth and so brought into the reflex of nurturing in that sense a bit more (but then, that's not because of gender directly, but the fact the women gives birth to the child and so forth). I think regardless of whoever is being the hero in that scenario, if they go in for the first person and is the only person to go in, they'd probably go back in for more people (presuming the danger didn't dramatically increase all of a sudden) to get more people.

You have to ask yourself though, how much of these differences due to gender are down to gender itself, or down to society conditioning people based on their gender?

I have, of course, been pondering Nature vs Nurture for over half a century. I know it is very fashionable to blame gender differences on culture, but they keep morphing, not merging, despite all the agitation. Ever since life discovered gender, every life form has been keen to identify members of their own species, and their gender. All behaviour depends upon both factors. A veneer of civilization can keep the barnyard dance subconscious, but it never stops. Currently, all gender issues are in a state of turmoil due to the Industrial Revolution changing the status and availability of work for women even more than for men. In the chaos, people with gender ambivalence have often been the avant garde, but they can never be the norm.

this is a very good sense even we look feminine ,,, even our act or anything look feminine. So we can grab all the girl around the world to have a chit chat and know them a lot.....

unlike other species, humans are something of a fluke in their rise to the top of the kingdom. if it were not for human intelligence, humanity would have become extinct long ago. any the strongest of men would be at a loss to a lioness if tossed naked into a deep pit with her without a tool to defend himself. so a man’s strength, is moot, unlike say that of a bear, when distinguishing the capabilities of the sexes considering the brain is the most important component to survival(man's brain is not innately stronger than a woman's, and vice versa). as such, there is nothing man can do with the freedoms of today in modern america, that woman cannot beyond performing male organ exclusive bodily functions if she is so determined. this is ideal... wouldn’t want a beloved daughter to feel hopelessly disadvantaged for not being born male if her interests are more in line with what is traditionally a male dominant field of interest even if she has to put in extra effort to physically keep up.

as for gender, the sex of woman and man are rather clearly defined, but gender itself is largely a social construct... any man can choose to cultivate the qualities they deem the best of the female gender, and any woman, the qualities they deem best of the male gender. the only thing that might dissuade them from doing so is the pressure of society to not shake the norm.

as for getting a rush of morale boosting heated blood flow , and feeling like it’d be possible to move a mountain, there’s not a whole lot more that’s been found in this life to be as exhilarating as practicing wing chun, taijiquan, japanese swordsmanship, or drawing freeform inspiration from bruce lee’s jeet kune do.

Sure, men and women are able to cultivate characteristics usually associated with the opposite gender, and we are in a period of low social inhibition in some locations, but I'm also sure that it would take a lot of nasty coerciveness to get us to average the same. Our genes have given women a larger corpus callosum, along with many other differences. Even if we were successfully homogenized, we would lose not only the inhibited natural potential, but also the possibility of symbiosis. A team always needs variety more than duplication.
Labour has always evolved toward gender-specific membership, punctuated by extreme talents whose strong inclinations overcome customs. There have always been a few Queens among the Kings, and outliers like Joan of Arc and Marie Curie. However, most of the time, a unisex work crew is better. It minimizes the distractions and power troubles in a mixed group, and gives each sex a safe space in which to discuss the other. One engineering start-up survived the first year, so the owner decided to improve the bare-bones furnishings in the office. This included "privacy panels" added to hide the secretaries' knees. The men then did 40% more work with fewer distractions. There are also strong suspicions that it was a couples' reunion while on duty that cost BC Ferries a big boat and the lives of two passengers.

Not reading the posts,but for me keeping a female happy.

Walk along naked on the street. Isn't that manly enough? hahaha

I'm pretty adept at camping and survival!

I started to feel "manly" the second I stood up to my deepest wishes, and went on knees at our housewarming in front of the family, proposing to my fiancé.

How lame it may sound, I started from that moment to feel a deeper responsibility for start being a man figure, taking care of us, doing more "man" things around the house.

Not to mention how "badass" I felt when I chopped my first piece of wood for the fireplace (I've always been quite the weak scaredy cat)!

It's not lame. You're already more manly than most of them guys on this forum.

From time to time, I get advice on how to deal with people, and it just does not work for me. I suspect, and my female counsellor concurs, that men and women get very different reactions when asking for sympathy, so such advice should never be assumed to be unisex. Have others here had similar problems?

Ive been told women just dont trust tears in a man. Its an instinctual thing.

^ That is a catch 22. "They" being a blanket generalization of all women for a start, as if they're all just variations on a single theme, don't trust tears from a man, but also believe a man who never cries or shows emotion is not "in touch with his feelings" enough or is not "emotionally available enough to be vulnerable"? Yeah. Can't have it both ways.
I don't know about gender-specific responses to seeking sympathy, but I do notice that when I am being perceived as a man, being friendly it is not taken to be sexually suggestive or inviting or flirtatious, but when people take me as woman and I'm being friendly, suddenly the exact same behaviour is a sexual invitation.

"All generalizations are useless, including this one." - Mark Twain.
Of course there are always exceptions. "All women" would so seldom apply that it is used specifically, whereas "women" means "Women in general, on average."
Thanks for the bisexual perspective. It fits perfectly with the notion that women are more selective about choosing partners, while men are generally expected to be easy to seduce. This is, of course, a result of women always having to make a large biological investment in a child, while men sometimes just freshen up the gene pool and let sterile men feel like fathers. Despite huge cultural variations, a pretty steady 10% of children are misinformed about the identity of their fathers. That's usually enough to avoid fatal inbreeding in small communities, but low enough that men are highly involved in supporting children through their long dependency. Women want a partner for support, but they also want the best genes for their kids. Thus the attraction of the "bad boys" - those prone to early death as soldiers, and wandering troubadours. Women feel very justified in fooling a man into supporting otherwise fatherless children, and the courts support that. DNA tests mean nothing if a man has ever let himself be called daddy. Women will even lie about mixed-race children and get away with it so often that I've seen one hear "You are Not the Father!" on TV, and fall apart.