Philosophy Now Forum

A true real man falls in love when he is protecting and cherishing a woman?

The famous marriage, family and child / cognitive behavioral therapist, author, and lecturer, Dr. Pat Allen, speaks about why people remain single or have unnecessary complications in their marriages and relationships. People are starving for the scientific facts on love, sex, dating, mating and relationships, but does science have the answers.

"In every relationship, feminine and masculine energies are communicating with each other. We are a species of gender. Unfortunately, while the Women’s Movement brought about some positive changes to the women who “think” so, it did far more harm to our culture than ever before. More men are walking around with vaginas, and more women have penises than ever in history.

Masculinity is the penetrating, creative, stoic and doing energy. Femininity is the receptive, passive, feeling and emotional energy. This is nature and nature cannot be altered, as it will wreak havoc on our health and minds. But this is the case now post Women’s Movement and post Sexual Revolution. Women wanted equality. And equality has turned men into women, and women into men. Hence the reason we see so many women drained of their life energy by nurturing her man while the man gets to have “mommy” in return and never become a true “real” man."

Ok, we continue here. Not sure this will interest you, but here's a few thoughts.

If we propose that gender roles are based in biology going back millions of years....

It would follow that if we try to edit these roles, these ancient inclinations will seek expression in some other manner. Kind of like water. If we block the flow of water, it will attempt to go around the obstruction and continue it's movement downhill.

In the current culture, women still get to be women. They can still have and raise babies.

It's harder for men to still be men, for the reasons we explored in the other thread. Men are less qualified to play leadership roles in the current environment, men's aggressiveness is increasingly dangerous thanks to technology etc.

I propose that men's ancient inclinations will seek expression in some other environment, the virtual world. Witness the huge numbers of men who spend their free time watching sports for instance. It's a fantasy world, where men can still play out men's traditional roles.

This journey in to the virtual world is in keeping with the historic inclinations of men, as it is an exploration of an unknown landscape. Typically, if men couldn't find what they needed in one area, they looked over the next hill to see if what they need is available there. This is what men have always done, and now continue to do.

The only difference is that we are now making a leap from the real world outside our minds, to the real world inside our minds.

If this theory has any merit, then men are still demonstrating leadership, taking us in to humanity's virtual future.

Whether this virtual future is better or worse than the real world outside of our minds is another question. Given how long we've been adapted to the real world outside of our minds, our travels in to a virtual based future are likely to be plagued with many challenges.

reasonvemotion wrote:A true real man falls in love when he is protecting and cherishing a woman?

The famous marriage, family and child / cognitive behavioral therapist, author, and lecturer, Dr. Pat Allen, speaks about why people remain single or have unnecessary complications in their marriages and relationships. People are starving for the scientific facts on love, sex, dating, mating and relationships, but does science have the answers.

"In every relationship, feminine and masculine energies are communicating with each other. We are a species of gender. Unfortunately, while the Women’s Movement brought about some positive changes to the women who “think” so, it did far more harm to our culture than ever before. More men are walking around with vaginas, and more women have penises than ever in history.

Masculinity is the penetrating, creative, stoic and doing energy. Femininity is the receptive, passive, feeling and emotional energy. This is nature and nature cannot be altered, as it will wreak havoc on our health and minds. But this is the case now post Women’s Movement and post Sexual Revolution. Women wanted equality. And equality has turned men into women, and women into men. Hence the reason we see so many women drained of their life energy by nurturing her man while the man gets to have “mommy” in return and never become a true “real” man."

Hi Reason,

Interesting thread. I am not so sure Dr. Pat Allen has thought things through well enough. I don't think the reason for people having "unnecessary complications" during marriage is the result of the women's movement...I blame it more on some men's reaction to the woman's movement. Some of these men became unreasonable about the feminist movement. In a word it really derailed their common sense and they lost respect in a woman's eyes whether they are feminist or not. If there ever was a "true man" surely equality and women's rights would not derail him so. The fact that it does derail him, screams a certain insecurity and/or an outright hate of women that we did not know existed before the woman's movement.

The mere mention of equality should have been welcome by people who truly loved women and simply had their best interests in mind. The fact that women were treated like dogs simply because they wanted to work, have the same pay for the same job and other such fair minded goals is mind boggling and truly frightening even to those women who did not think equality was a big issue...I am sure deep down inside they knew there was something just not right about how their men reacted to such a benign movement. The unveiling of such a deep seeded hatred for women was hidden until the woman's movement...and women are not stupid. Even if their man treated them like a princess while berating another woman...they knew the truth..."there but for the grace of God go I". They knew the truth that It could just as easily be them on the other end of their man's disdain.

And therein lies the terrifying truth. It is simply unfathomable to see the man you love become someone different before your very eyes. The man who courted you, who protected you, who you loved...broke down and became weak when a woman...who could in fact be you someday through hardship or necessity....was ridiculed and berated simply for wanting to be independent.

There is just something terrifying about seeing irrational behavior in a man who was supposed to be the "epitome of strength"...esp when they are complaining that a woman's movement will make them weak. And let's face it...that is the bottom line of why the were against it in the first place. It is this lack of respect for women that caused women to have a lack of respect for men....as it was the men who were demanding that they are superior and not the other way around. And this loss of respect women began to have for men that caused the breakdown of relationships. Who could a woman trust to protect her family if her man was falling apart about something so sensible the belief that a person...no matter who...should be able to sustain life and survive. It is only practical that a woman should be able to survive whether or not she had a man. It's just common sense.

The only logical choice is to make the self evident conclusion that feminism is practical instead of turning it into a big showdown in which opposition was sure to lose, was and is asinine...and what woman wants to be married to an ass?

AS:

And therein lies the terrifying truth. It is simply unfathomable to see the man you love become someone different before your very eyes. The man who courted you, who protected you, who you loved...broke down and became weak when a woman...who could in fact be you someday through hardship or necessity....was ridiculed and berated simply for wanting to be independent.

"A woman who surrenders her agency to a man is the very worst tyrant, because she exploits his instinct to protect her as if she is an infant while retaining her." Many women do this, it is called manipulation.

I most emphatically don't think any man wants a woman who is a liability, be it it materialistic or emotional and fail to accept a woman would be ridiculed for being that, in fact, I think a man would be very attracted to a woman of financial independence and who is willing to be loyal and stand by her man, especially if he "broke down".

Women have the lost the art of class and feminity, it is a perverse rejection of who we (women) are.

AS:
There is just something terrifying about seeing irrational behavior in a man who was supposed to be the "epitome of strength"...esp when they are complaining that a woman's movement will make them weak. And let's face it...that is the bottom line of why the were against it in the first place. It is this lack of respect for women that caused women to have a lack of respect for men....as it was the men who were demanding that they are superior and not the other way around. And this loss of respect women began to have for men that caused the breakdown of relationships. Who could a woman trust to protect her family if her man was falling apart about something so sensible the belief that a person...no matter who...should be able to sustain life and survive. It is only practical that a woman should be able to survive whether or not she had a man. It's just common sense.

The only logical choice is to make the self evident conclusion that feminism is practical instead of turning it into a big showdown in which opposition was sure to lose, was and is asinine...and what woman wants to be married to an ass?

It is clear, your thinking is feminism. I do think however, feminism won't last and the mind boggles what will happen when it topples over. In response to "who wants to be married to an ass", I think that can easily be explained why you perceive men in this way from the quote below. Women are accountable for much more than they are willing to take responsibility for.

"From sitcoms to romcoms to TV commercials, to billboard ads, the role of husband/father is increasingly one of playing the incompetent buffoon to sassy, smart, together wife or even child. In the mass media there is nothing noble or respectable about husbandhood or fatherhood anymore. Further, when the roles within marriage become virtually indistinguishable and interchangeable, a man's role becomes less and less...well, uniquely male. It's just a role. It can be a path to meaning and fulfilment (if he's lucky), and it may be something he desires to do and become, but it's not necessarily a path to defining himself AS A MAN."

There are countless ways to be a feminist. None of which I admire.

Hi Reason,

RVE:"A woman who surrenders her agency to a man is the very worst tyrant, because she exploits his instinct to protect her as if she is an infant while retaining her." Many women do this, it is called manipulation.

AS:I hesitate to belittle women as tyrants. First because we cannot know for sure who she is really...and what she is thinking. I think it is better to err on the side of caution when understanding human behavior lest we misjudge and devalue women.

RVE: I most emphatically don't think any man wants a woman who is a liability, be it it materialistic or emotional and fail to accept a woman would be ridiculed for being that, in fact, I think a man would be very attracted to a woman of financial independence and who is willing to be loyal and stand by her man, especially if he "broke down".

AS: And visa versa. But men have not traditionally had a problem with financial Independence, women have...which is why a word needed to be created to describe a social problem...and that word is feminism. If we look at the definition we clearly see that it is benign:

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment."

Wikipedia

AS:No where in the definition of feminism does it say "swearing spittin army boot wearing she men". This idea was created by people who were afraid of a world where women were given equal opportunities in whatever she aspired to be. Femininity encompasses all that women do, however, that definition is broad and every women is entitled to figure out what her brand of "femininity" will be. I think it is a mistake to think of femininity as either this or that.

RVE: Women have the lost the art of class and feminity, it is a perverse rejection of who we (women) are.

AS:I think it is a mistake to think of femininity as either this or that. What is this perverse rejection? How do you believe a woman should act? What if she disagreed? Would she suddenly become unfeminine?

RVE: It is clear, your thinking is feminism. I do think however, feminism won't last and the mind boggles what will happen when it topples over. In response to "who wants to be married to an ass", I think that can easily be explained why you perceive men in this way from the quote below. Women are accountable for much more than they are willing to take responsibility for.

AS: I don't understand what you are saying here? Are you trying to say that I have a great disrespect for men? If so, you are not alone...Arising thinks so too. But you are both mistaken....that is unless you both respect every man you have ever met.

I am talking strictly about men who do not want to see women make the same pay or have the same opportunities as they do. As I stated before I think it is short sighted to not want to give women and avenue for survival. Wouldn't you agree that such an limited view as to want to actively keep women from making a living , would make a man asinine?

Maybe a better word would be absurd? I think a man who would tie a woman's hands in this manner is absurd. That does not mean I think all men are absurd or that I would not be nice to a man who thought in an absurd way. I would be very nice to him if he was nice to me and to others...but I would not respect him. And I would keep my distance. And my advice to any other woman would be to keep their distance as well lest they get caught up in a romance with an absurd mean man who would limit their livelihood to being kept barefoot and pregnant. (there are still men like that out there...Duncan Butlin (or was it bulter) comes to mind.

He was a extremely charming man who was quite absurd. He made me laugh many times...and I enjoyed his personality. I thought it funny when arising warned me he was dangerous...as if I was going to fall into his trap or something. I was not and would not....because I thought he was absurd. But he was different in one way...he could actually explain his position in a very interesting and charming manner, unlike most women hating type men. He actually believed he was being kind by beating his wife and truly thought she would be happier being under his supervision and care...but I digress...I could write volumes about Duncan sorry....lol.

RVE: There are countless ways to be a feminist. None of which I admire.

AS: Really? That interests me...why? Seriously...I don't understand what you think feminism mean or implies. Would you please explain?

reasonvemotion wrote: "From sitcoms to romcoms to TV commercials, to billboard ads, the role of husband/father is increasingly one of playing the incompetent buffoon to sassy, smart, together wife or even child.

could it be that this is merely the recognition of something that predates feminism - men having been predisposed to bafoonery through times immemorial

have you ever listened to a guy who is mad at his girlfriend and tries to articulate it - it typically goes along the lines of 'so ... she is like... being a complete bitch... doing bitchy things and... like... stuff...prolly on her period'

a girl complaining about her boyfriend is more likely to say something along the lines of

he said that he would come over at 6pm - instead he came over at 9pm and was drunk - then after oggling my kid sisters breasts he started texting with his friends and totally ignored me

reasonvemotion wrote:A true real man falls in love when he is protecting and cherishing a woman?

The famous marriage, family and child / cognitive behavioral therapist, author, and lecturer, Dr. Pat Allen, speaks about why people remain single or have unnecessary complications in their marriages and relationships. People are starving for the scientific facts on love, sex, dating, mating and relationships, but does science have the answers.

"In every relationship, feminine and masculine energies are communicating with each other. We are a species of gender. Unfortunately, while the Women’s Movement brought about some positive changes to the women who “think” so, it did far more harm to our culture than ever before. More men are walking around with vaginas, and more women have penises than ever in history.

Masculinity is the penetrating, creative, stoic and doing energy. Femininity is the receptive, passive, feeling and emotional energy. This is nature and nature cannot be altered, as it will wreak havoc on our health and minds. But this is the case now post Women’s Movement and post Sexual Revolution. Women wanted equality. And equality has turned men into women, and women into men. Hence the reason we see so many women drained of their life energy by nurturing her man while the man gets to have “mommy” in return and never become a true “real” man."

This is not science.
This is a cultural caricature.

have you ever listened to a guy who is mad at his girlfriend and tries to articulate it - it typically goes along the lines of 'so ... she is like... being a complete bitch... doing bitchy things and... like... stuff...prolly on her period'

a girl complaining about her boyfriend is more likely to say something along the lines of

he said that he would come over at 6pm - instead he came over at 9pm and was drunk - then after oggling my kid sisters breasts he started texting with his friends and totally ignored me

Well it has already been established you have lesbian tendencies, so a guy doesnt stand a chance.

"It's not that I don't like penises. I just don't like them on men." ~Lea Delaria

Penis envy?

reasonvemotion wrote:

Well it has already been established you have lesbian tendencies, so a guy doesnt stand a chance.

"It's not that I don't like penises. I just don't like them on men." ~Lea Delaria

Penis envy?

Reasonvemotion wrote: "Women have the lost the art of class and feminity, it is a perverse rejection of who we (women) are."

Are you trying to prove your point with the above statements or do you think your statements directed at other women are the epitome of class and femininity?

reasonvemotion wrote:Well it has already been established you have lesbian tendencies, so a guy doesnt stand a chance.

i do have a boyfriend

Kayla:

i do have a boyfriend

Kayla:

try to think this one through

a girl is more likely to know what turns a girl on

So the BF just doesnt do it for you?

a girl is more likely to know what a girl wants sexually and emotionally

..... and emotionally, wow.

also girls smell nice most guys do not no offence - its not really a matter of personal hygiene or anything like that[/quote]

No offence guys. She is just not into you.

Kayla:

i have a boyfriend so i dont think i am the latter

Yeah, so you said. Have you told him lately he stinks?

RVE: There are countless ways to be a feminist. None of which I admire.

AS: Really? That interests me...why? Seriously...I don't understand what you think feminism mean or implies. Would you please explain?

Pointing out feminist bigotry is useless with feminists of any variety. Your response from a “radical” will be fuck off, your response from a “moderate” will be “you don’t understand feminism,” and your response from a “good feminist” will be “none of the feminists I know are like that.”

Which one are you?

reasonvemotion wrote:RVE: There are countless ways to be a feminist. None of which I admire.

AS: Really? That interests me...why? Seriously...I don't understand what you think feminism mean or implies. Would you please explain?

Pointing out feminist bigotry is useless with feminists of any variety. Your response from a “radical” will be fuck off, your response from a “moderate” will be “you don’t understand feminism,” and your response from a “good feminist” will be “none of the feminists I know are like that.”

Which one are you?

LOL Countless huh? Seems to me you narrowed it down to 3. I would simply add a forth...and that is a feminist who doesn't know she's a feminist. Sound familiar? That is...unless you're a guy...which I am getting the feeling you are....either that or you are so jealous of kayla you can't see straight.

As for me I can be any one of the above feminist depending on my mood. Are ya feelin' lucky punk?

You are sure one kick ass broad.........

Not my approach. I don't know any guy who would take this, lying down or standing up.

AS:

My husband told me when we first got married...before he understood what marrying me entailed...That I should be a stay at home mom...lol. I just let him know in no uncertain terms that that isn't how our marriage was going down and that I was going to continue working. He also tried to tell me that our children were going to be raised Jewish...to which I also replied 'No, they will be raised both our religions or just mine or none." I told him he could choose which one it was gonna be...lol.

I think he was like most men when they are young...still attached to the pretense of what it is to be a "man." A women helps a boy become a man...or more precisely...a man she can live with

AS:

LOL Countless huh? Seems to me you narrowed it down to 3. I would simply add a forth...and that is a feminist who doesn't know she's a feminist. Sound familiar?


...unless you're a guy...which I am getting the feeling you are....either that or you are so jealous of kayla you can't see straight

If AS is Mexican, Salma Hayek and Kayla, Hispanic, Eva Longoria, I could be jealous, but, if I am a guy, I could be loving it.


Or, I could be fed up with women putting men down.


Narrowed down to three again. Is that a problem?