xBullx
Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Bull, there is nothing in the article or in what I wrote that advocates making men into "little mamma's boys." Quite to the contrary, it is clear that men who are being emasculated by the economic role reversal which may be underway are frustrated by their diminshed status.
Again, this is a condition of man’s own efforts or lack thereof. I suspect some men are ok with their current state of affairs, for now. As I said, I believe it to be cyclical.
Personally I don't believe that there is a complete reversal of roles. It seems possible that we are merely utilizing everyone in his or her greatest capacity. Being secure with my status in life I feel neither threatened nor emasculated by the presence of women in upper managerial roles, competitions good the way I see it. I suppose one could call it evolutionary, but it seems a bit more reactionary to me. Concurrently, it seems to me that would be a natural course of events, nature did, after all, supply us with the sense of reason.
Now in my previous post I may have over-simplified a thing or two, but that was intentional, perhaps even meant as provocation. A man that attempts to stifle the playing field in order to promote a sense of ease for himself is already extinct and should be culled from the herd, that to is a natural concept.
quote:
Explicitly from your comments you govern your life because you have established a business and exert command and control management. However, you do not make a case to support your original claim that it is the "natural order" of things. I think the case can be made if the details were known that what you have accomplished is well within the mainstream social roles of traditional patriarchal society. If you could show me the natural imperative in that I would be willing to listen.
I had to go back and read my other posts to see where I mentioned natural order, I didn't remember where I said that. The fact is, I didn't. Natural order may have some scientific validity, but it becomes dreadfully hard to defend it and it creates more difference in an argument than commonality.
Nature implants mental, physical and survival aspects within our DNA coding, I don't believe I know anyone that argues that. These impulses govern our ability to exist, adapt and survive in an ever-changing world. Even without technology the world would be in a state of fluctuation, perhaps at a slower pace, but it would and will change. Maybe men with their infinity to solve problems by whippin’ someone’s ass, the advent of the nuclear age and the chance to impose absolute destruction have inspired a natural evolution where the more passive nature of women are now bringing life into balance before life ceases to exist.
It is my opinion that nature has seen fit to subvert the concept when one side of the species begins to believe it can survive without the other. Nature made us interdependent upon one another intentionally. Like it or not we need each other and that's nature's doing. Natural order has nothing to do with that in so many words. Natural balance however does have a great deal to do with it.
The universe begins with the concept of energy, from this all else is spawned, the single nucleus, the atom, the cell, the complex organism, and on and on. In actuality each thing a universe unto itself; and at that it must maintain it's own natural balance or it's survival will be no more. Man and woman are their own universe that when operating within natural design they produce a poetic harmony and increase their chance of survival. It is only comprised within our own human arrogance that we concluded that we are above or advanced of nature’s inclination and in fact, rules.
There is much more to our natural concepts than a bunch of men knocking women over the head and dragging them off by their hair. Leadership isn't inspired by might but rather by honest ability and stalwart example, the men and women that realize this have little difficulty taking their place within natures scheme.
I don't believe that intellectually one gender of our species has the advantage over the other, on the whole. No one is always the smartest, the strongest or the best at something unless nature sees fit to design us as such. But generally there are no absolutes in life. Though it is my opinion that nature tends to code males as group leaders, concurrently it tends to code females with the capacity to be happy in a supporting role. Is that a natural order, no it's a natural inclination. Ever hear the sayings "too many Cooks spoil the broth", "too many Chiefs and not enough Indians", I think nature has heard both.
Now I am not one of those folks that worships nature, but I do believe that attemting to deny it, place ourselves above it or seperate ouselves from it's proclivity only demonstartes a lack of understanding the universe at work.
quote:
I posit that your way or the highway lifestyle is dead on with the 3000 year judeo/islamic/christian tradition where men were men and as is now about to occur in Iran women were stoned to death for stepping outside their role as property.
I suspect you’re describing the advent of natural balance. And since you are bringing up Iran I am going to give you something to think about. Overpopulation conflicts with natural design so hold on tight the ride is fixin’ to get bumpy. 
_____________________________
Live well,
Bull
I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...
"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."
Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.
|
RE: Are Men Becoming Irrelevant? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread