Tangent- Modern man and woman

[Zarathustra]

This began as a reply to the Fatherhood thread concerning a man's say in matters of abortion, but it is too general and unrelated to the specifics of that topic, so I am starting here anew.

Misogony? Pining for the good old days?

I will certainly agree that some women are selfish, "ego-ridden" bitches these days, but nothing has changed over the millenia.

Big ol- Not true. People today have an entirely different outlook on life. Look even at Japan circa World War II- an entirely different breed of people than those who lumber and trample the earth today.

Plenty of men are pathetic little mommy's-boys, and that has been the case for some time as well.

Since "plenty" is a meaningless relative term, this is true, but, it is more common in the modern world; more importantly, it is more socially acceptable to fit this description. It is looked at as a choice and expression of what is often even called "sophisticated!" In better times, such weaklings were brushed aside, beheaded, enslaved, or laughed into exile. When this was not the case, men still only looked up to heroic and olympian ideals of men; where men fell short of this, they found fault, not tolerance and support groups. As if the weak legs of the many could gain strength by leaning on their fellow cripples!

Today, this impoverished masculinity is called "good," called -sensitive! "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

The so-called "sexual revolution" was bound to occur in an open society with a seperation of Church and State. (I do believe that drugs and Vietnam and Rock & Roll hastened the process.) Women demanded to be treated as equal members of society, including the right to be as slutty as they pleased. No more double standards regarding sexual conquest.

You are contradicting your former statement that women have not changed. Are they the same, or are they a revolutionary new breed? In either case- today, they are poor specimens, and lack any real expression of anything truly Feminine. They are selfish, self-centered, evnious, impotent, castrated men. The women of older cultures that proudly raised sons and nurtured husbands, who accepted concubinage as a manly right, who saw themselves as an offering for their men, were far superior to the cast of Sex and the City and the decaying wretched wenches who follow in their expensively scented, pretentiously clad footsteps.

To this I offer a sincere No, the nausea of a stomach attuned to itself, to its own tastes. None called either man or woman, only a neutered, dead, mechanical new reality, the individual, would dare allege that this current order of the sexes is anything but folly and madness. Where I see men preaching otherwise, often you can detect a woman's voice, a woman's will- indeed, it is woman herself hiding behind these preachers, ugly and poor and jealous and lonely. And obscured in shadow behind her, the preachers of decay that could not yet trick the men.

I also agree that the mass media selling sex for the last 40 or 50 years has had an impact. Old fogey that I am becoming, I find the degradation of sexuality of the "hip-hop" generation disturbing. Young teen-agers "hooking up" for casual sex is probably not a good thing for society. Especially with the threat of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, including AIDs.

A symptom of the decay of manhood, not a cause. Were men responsible, they would never allow this attitude to sink into their society- it would break like the waves on a cliff. Rather than immunize themselves against such infection with clarity, a vigorous, stark, solar disposition and a love of boundaries, they sell their children for profit and relegate the responsibilities and privileges of men to ethical speculation. What could be better for business and consumption, after all?

Our society is undergoing pressures and changes exponentially faster and more extreme. Some may work, others fail miserably. I suspect that the "Red-State" phenonoma of Bible-thumping is a reaction to such changes.

Are you again saying people, women among them, are different?

I'd recommend that unless one can reverse time or gravity, that we ride this roller coaster and hope we make it back to the station safely. It's not as if there are any other rational choices.

Certainly, a very clear choice is detachment. Why should one only ever offer coping strategies? Why should a man gather at the feed troughs and think only how to improve the smell and the crude manners of the hungry swine? Better to honor and love his disgust, and run fleeing from such stink.

[Zarathustra]

Comeon you lepers- discuss!

This began as a reply to the Fatherhood thread concerning a man's say in matters of abortion, but it is too general and unrelated to the specifics of that topic, so I am starting here anew.

Misogony? Pining for the good old days?

I will certainly agree that some women are selfish, "ego-ridden" bitches these days, but nothing has changed over the millenia.

Big ol- Not true. People today have an entirely different outlook on life. Look even at Japan circa World War II- an entirely different breed of people than those who lumber and trample the earth today.
Not being an anthropology major, I suppose that theoretically, you might be correct. That said, there have been "cultures" seen as completely alien to explorers since time immemorial, many with women ruling the roost. I don't subscribe to Nietche's "Superman," nor do I think that western "culture" (as it were) is heading in the right direction. I suspect that we just might greed ourselves to the brink of extinction. As a species, I find mankind sorely lacking in the proper use of our hightly evolved brains.

Plenty of men are pathetic little mommy's-boys, and that has been the case for some time as well.

Since "plenty" is a meaningless relative term, this is true, but, it is more common in the modern world; more importantly, it is more socially acceptable to fit this description. It is looked at as a choice and expression of what is often even called "sophisticated!" In better times, such weaklings were brushed aside, beheaded, enslaved, or laughed into exile. When this was not the case, men still only looked up to heroic and olympian ideals of men; where men fell short of this, they found fault, not tolerance and support groups. As if the weak legs of the many could gain strength by leaning on their fellow cripples!

The rumor (if one is inclined to believe such) is that David slew Goliath. If I was inclined toward stories out of the Old Testament I'd prefer Soloman and Job though...

Today, this impoverished masculinity is called "good," called -sensitive! "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

As soon as we became capable of destroying the only planet that we have - it was required that we sheath our claws to one degree or another.

The so-called "sexual revolution" was bound to occur in an open society with a seperation of Church and State. (I do believe that drugs and Vietnam and Rock & Roll hastened the process.) Women demanded to be treated as equal members of society, including the right to be as slutty as they pleased. No more double standards regarding sexual conquest.

You are contradicting your former statement that women have not changed. Are they the same, or are they a revolutionary new breed? In either case- today, they are poor specimens, and lack any real expression of anything truly Feminine. They are selfish, self-centered, evnious, impotent, castrated men. The women of older cultures that proudly raised sons and nurtured husbands, who accepted concubinage as a manly right, who saw themselves as an offering for their men, were far superior to the cast of Sex and the City and the decaying wretched wenches who follow in their expensively scented, pretentiously clad footsteps.

The women that you describe still exist. They always have. So have Shrews, and "Red Light Districts," and women using their sexual talents to influence "their" men. Some women are better at some things than others. Some have abilities beyond nurturing. Go figure.

To this I offer a sincere No, the nausea of a stomach attuned to itself, to its own tastes. None called either man or woman, only a neutered, dead, mechanical new reality, the individual, would dare allege that this current order of the sexes is anything but folly and madness. Where I see men preaching otherwise, often you can detect a woman's voice, a woman's will- indeed, it is woman herself hiding behind these preachers, ugly and poor and jealous and lonely. And obscured in shadow behind her, the preachers of decay that could not yet trick the men.

What do you want? Barefoot and pregnant? It aint gonna happen. Besides, the fewer that breed, the more room for me to breath. A woman victim of the Tsunami was reported to have lost all of the eleven children. Are her genes that goddamn important? Give me a break!

I also agree that the mass media selling sex for the last 40 or 50 years has had an impact. Old fogey that I am becoming, I find the degradation of sexuality of the "hip-hop" generation disturbing. Young teen-agers "hooking up" for casual sex is probably not a good thing for society. Especially with the threat of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, including AIDs.

A symptom of the decay of manhood, not a cause. Were men responsible, they would never allow this attitude to sink into their society- it would break like the waves on a cliff. Rather than immunize themselves against such infection with clarity, a vigorous, stark, solar disposition and a love of boundaries, they sell their children for profit and relegate the responsibilities and privileges of men to ethical speculation. What could be better for business and consumption, after all?

The rules have changed. Adolescents with aching loins to a large degree are going to fulfill their cravings. Threats of hell don't work as well as they used to. Some will pay the piper. Others will become better balanced and get their Serotonin and Dopamine levels in balance and live contentedly. Some may become mindless consumers marching the treadmill offerred them.

Our society is undergoing pressures and changes exponentially faster and more extreme. Some may work, others fail miserably. I suspect that the "Red-State" phenonoma of Bible-thumping is a reaction to such changes.

Are you again saying people, women among them, are different?

Evolving, societally. Is it a good thing? Who's to tell? It will all come out in the wash, one way or another.

I'd recommend that unless one can reverse time or gravity, that we ride this roller coaster and hope we make it back to the station safely. It's not as if there are any other rational choices.

Certainly, a very clear choice is detachment. Why should one only ever offer coping strategies? Why should a man gather at the feed troughs and think only how to improve the smell and the crude manners of the hungry swine? Better to honor and love his disgust, and run fleeing from such stink.

The days of "Go West, Young Man" have passed. It is certainly possible to avoid some of the aspects of society that you dislike by simply not joining, or not watching or listening. If that's not good enough, there are places in the wilds where a man might attempt a Jeremiah Johnson type of life, but heaven forbid you break your leg ten miles from your cabin in a blizzard.

[Zarathustra]

Most of that was offered as a rebuttal to a point I made, but in fact had nothing to do with the issue it responded to. I am thoroughly confused and bored.