[rad-fem hate-speech redacted] out of style thanks to men in skirts

[ScotL]

Great reply by Uncle Al! Note that if we socialized boys like we socialize girls, boys would not have made fun of Uncle Al for practicing the piano. Roughhousing and aggression in boys needs to be nipped in the bud at a very early age, or it will be here to stay. Instead of roughhousing, boys should be socialized to play a musical instrument, cook, wear girls clothing if they like, and value femininity.

I disagree. I think boys should be free to behave like boys and that means some level of physical roughness and aggression is natural and even desirable.
Boys should be encouraged to value masculinity.

I don’t think we should not value boys being boys when it comes to playing sports and wrestling and doing all the things I did growing up. However, they need to be socialized to realize that there is a time and a place and aggression is not helpful if you are say not on the pitch.

We get hung up on defining exactly what masculinity is.

What is it? Anyone know??

[Uncle Al]

The whole topic of "[rad-fem hate-speech redacted]" is degrading to all men

Yes, some men are bad but most are quite good, decent people.
But the 'media' tries to paint the picture that ALL MEN ARE BAD.

I say this is WRONG

Why is it that 1% or less of the population, are the people
who yell the loudest and get to say all men are bad

Can we not stop this topic and continue promoting men in skirts
Can we not stop adding fuel to their fire storm
WE are not the problem
Let's put out their fire and continue with our lives
Let's be productive people who happen to have a different
clothing style and choice

Personally, I'm ready for this topic/thread to cease discussion
as it is not going to stop the haters from hating.

Uncle Al

[crfriend]

Also, in response to Jamie001's assertion that mothers and women in general are incapable of violent crime, I offer not only my personal experience but this, the story of a mother in my own state who recently murdered three of her own children. Just bloody charming -- and quite recent.

Women are just as fully capable of being violent as men are -- even discounting crimes committed by proxy.

Turning men into 3rd-rate women is NOT the answer. Trying to turn 3rd-rate men into at least 2nd-class men is.

[Myopic Bookworm]

Roughhousing and aggression in boys needs to be nipped in the bud at a very early age, or it will be here to stay. Instead of roughhousing, boys should be socialized to play a musical instrument, cook, wear girls clothing if they like, and value femininity.

I disagree. I think boys should be free to behave like boys and that means some level of physical roughness and aggression is natural and even desirable.
Boys should be encouraged to value masculinity.

I don’t think we should not value boys being boys when it comes to playing sports and wrestling and doing all the things I did growing up. However, they need to be socialized to realize that there is a time and a place and aggression is not helpful if you are say not on the pitch.

We get hung up on defining exactly what masculinity is.

What is it? Anyone know??

If being a boy is basically about physical roughness and aggression, playing sports and wrestling, then perhaps I must be a girl after all.

That stereotypical view of masculinity simply doesn't fit a high enough proportion of boys to be treated as a norm, or as a standard to be looked up to. I know about the roughhousing and the aggression: like many boys with no interest in sport or other contests of virility, I was often on the receiving end of the aggression. I was and still am an intellectual and a nerd; I have little or no interest in sport, cars, guns, or power tools, and I am generally uncomfortable in male-only social settings.

The "alpha male" ideal of masculinity requires that large numbers of men must be denigrated as beta or gamma males, because they do not measure up to the standard. Alpha males like to have inferiors, whether male or female. What they really can't abide is people who refuse to play the game; those who don't respect them for what they think they ought to be respected for. The intellectuals, the artists, the quiet boys, the introverts, the homosexuals, are not valued as men; their way of being men is not "masculine" enough.

Girls are now much more free to be rough, aggressive, and boisterous if they want to be. Boys must be free NOT to be those things if they don't want to be.

[Jim]

As for [rad-fem hate-speech redacted], There is no such thing as [rad-fem hate-speech redacted]! Why? Because men are not toxic!

Similarly, there is no such thing as spoiled food! Why? Because food is not spoiled!

[jamie001]

Great reply by Uncle Al! Note that if we socialized boys like we socialize girls, boys would not have made fun of Uncle Al for practicing the piano. Roughhousing and aggression in boys needs to be nipped in the bud at a very early age, or it will be here to stay. Instead of roughhousing, boys should be socialized to play a musical instrument, cook, wear girls clothing if they like, and value femininity.

I disagree. I think boys should be free to behave like boys and that means some level of physical roughness and aggression is natural and even desirable.
Boys should be encouraged to value masculinity.

You are incorrect. Roughness and aggression are the root of the problem! They serve no useful purpose. Who defines what it means to "behave like boys"? That is the problem in a nutshell. This "behave like boys" aggressive behavior has been passed down from generation to generation with thoughtless abandon. There is nothing natural about roughness and aggression. It is the reason that men go goofy with guns!

[crfriend]

As for [rad-fem hate-speech redacted], There is no such thing as [rad-fem hate-speech redacted]! Why? Because men are not toxic!

Similarly, there is no such thing as spoiled food! Why? Because food is not spoiled!

Add decay and/or toxins into anything and it'll go toxic. Spoilt food is usually pretty easy to identify "by nose" and discard. 3rd- or 4th- rate males (or females) are similarly easy to identify.

The point is that the overwhelming majority of men are decent upstanding citizens who stand with their wives or significant others, sometimes in very highly stressful situations -- and that's to be applauded, not damned under a figure of hate speech. Men do not deserve to be turned into 2nd- or 3rd- rate women; they deserve to be proper men.

I'm not going to get all that deep into the "Aplha", "Beta", &c men here, but suffice to say that "Alphas" need "Betas" (or lower) to believe they can thrive. Societal facts point this up. In fact, it's usually the "Alphas" that are the most "toxic" (mostly psychopathic) -- and they are fortunately few in number. However, I would not try to turn these into 2nd- or 3rd- rate women. I'd imprison them and remove them from society. Anybody who has ever worked for a psychopath will know of what I speak. It may work in the wolf pack but does not with human society (assuming human society is functioning properly)

Please, let's stop using radical "feminist" language without considering its usage in common terms. If you really believe that all men are somehow "toxic", then feel free to keep using it, but it's not welcome to the rest of us who aren't.

[Kirbstone]

I fear this thread has more than run its course and the subject matter is disagreeable in the extreme.

I personally have absolutely no time for the aggressors of this World, but they keep on being born and nurtured, alas, hence the crime rate.

Skirt wearing by members of our male fraternity is about as far removed from that as it's possible to get, is fun and a little entertaining as well.

Tom

[ScotL]

I disagree. I think boys should be free to behave like boys and that means some level of physical roughness and aggression is natural and even desirable.
Boys should be encouraged to value masculinity.

I don’t think we should not value boys being boys when it comes to playing sports and wrestling and doing all the things I did growing up. However, they need to be socialized to realize that there is a time and a place and aggression is not helpful if you are say not on the pitch.

We get hung up on defining exactly what masculinity is.

What is it? Anyone know??

If being a boy is basically about physical roughness and aggression, playing sports and wrestling, then perhaps I must be a girl after all.

That stereotypical view of masculinity simply doesn't fit a high enough proportion of boys to be treated as a norm, or as a standard to be looked up to. I know about the roughhousing and the aggression: like many boys with no interest in sport or other contests of virility, I was often on the receiving end of the aggression. I was and still am an intellectual and a nerd; I have little or no interest in sport, cars, guns, or power tools, and I am generally uncomfortable in male-only social settings.

The "alpha male" ideal of masculinity requires that large numbers of men must be denigrated as beta or gamma males, because they do not measure up to the standard. Alpha males like to have inferiors, whether male or female. What they really can't abide is people who refuse to play the game; those who don't respect them for what they think they ought to be respected for. The intellectuals, the artists, the quiet boys, the introverts, the homosexuals, are not valued as men; their way of being men is not "masculine" enough.

Girls are now much more free to be rough, aggressive, and boisterous if they want to be. Boys must be free NOT to be those things if they don't want to be.

You’ve taken my comment to a degree I did not. I said being aggressive and physical should still be valued in boys on sports fields. Never said it was a requirement for being a boy. Or if you weren’t physical you were a girl. That’s twisting my words. Please do not

[ScotL]

I fear this thread has more than run its course and the subject matter is disagreeable in the extreme.

I personally have absolutely no time for the aggressors of this World, but they keep on being born and nurtured, alas, hence the crime rate.

Skirt wearing by members of our male fraternity is about as far removed from that as it's possible to get, is fun and a little entertaining as well.

Tom

As we discussed before, I’m going to further this discussion by stating for the first time ever, I wore a kilt on a plane. And lived to tell the tale. Anyone else want to share a skirted story?

[rode_kater]

I said being aggressive and physical should still be valued in boys on sports fields.

Pfft, not by me. Stuff like wrestling, gridiron, rugby league, etc don't interest me in the slightest. Other people might like watching men acting like animals, but it's not my thing.

Interestingly there was an article in the paper this morning about a smartwatch that helps people with anger issues by predicting when an attack is imminent and warning them, currently being trailing in a psychiatric unit. This gives them a moment to reflect and hopefully helps. There was an ethicist who was arguing that this is a bad development because it indicates that we as a society no longer accept that anger has a place. They argued that anger is just one of the human emotions and shouldn't be suppressed.

I don't really agree. If you have anger issues then you learn to control them or take them out on a boxing bag. Just as long as you don't target people, animals or other breakable objects.

They had a small point in the argument that who decides what counts as an "anger issue" and leaving this to AI and big tech is a bad idea. I don't think this is an actual problem though. The bigger issue is that we live with more people in less space and if you can't control your anger then you need to go somewhere else.

(Incidentally, in Dutch they use the phrase "woedeaanvallen" which google translates to "tantrums". However that word for me associates with children whereas "woedeaanvellen" is something adults definitely can do.)

I guess the question would be, is there a negative correlation between people who have anger management issues and people who wear skirts?

[pelmut]

Interestingly there was an article in the paper this morning about a smartwatch that helps people with anger issues by predicting when an attack is imminent and warning them, currently being trailing in a psychiatric unit. This gives them a moment to reflect and hopefully helps. There was an ethicist who was arguing that this is a bad development because it indicates that we as a society no longer accept that anger has a place. They argued that anger is just one of the human emotions and shouldn't be suppressed.

I don't really agree. If you have anger issues then you learn to control them or take them out on a boxing bag. Just as long as you don't target people, animals or other breakable objects.

I'm not sure which bit of that you are disagreeing with, the smartwatch or the ethicist?  The anger is not the problem, it is the way someone deals (or fails to deal) with that anger which can cause a problem.  Suppressing anger can lead to even more anger but expressing it in a harmless way can help to dissipate it.  It looks to me as though the ethicist said it shouldn't be 'suppressed ' but a journalist has taken that to mean he was claiming it shouldn't be 'expressed '.

[ScotL]

I said being aggressive and physical should still be valued in boys on sports fields.

Pfft, not by me. Stuff like wrestling, gridiron, rugby league, etc don't interest me in the slightest. Other people might like watching men acting like animals, but it's not my thing.

Interestingly there was an article in the paper this morning about a smartwatch that helps people with anger issues by predicting when an attack is imminent and warning them, currently being trailing in a psychiatric unit. This gives them a moment to reflect and hopefully helps. There was an ethicist who was arguing that this is a bad development because it indicates that we as a society no longer accept that anger has a place. They argued that anger is just one of the human emotions and shouldn't be suppressed.

I don't really agree. If you have anger issues then you learn to control them or take them out on a boxing bag. Just as long as you don't target people, animals or other breakable objects.

They had a small point in the argument that who decides what counts as an "anger issue" and leaving this to AI and big tech is a bad idea. I don't think this is an actual problem though. The bigger issue is that we live with more people in less space and if you can't control your anger then you need to go somewhere else.

(Incidentally, in Dutch they use the phrase "woedeaanvallen" which google translates to "tantrums". However that word for me associates with children whereas "woedeaanvellen" is something adults definitely can do.)

I guess the question would be, is there a negative correlation between people who have anger management issues and people who wear skirts?

Just because I said I think aggression and physicality should still be valued by boys who are athletes on the field of play does not mean everyone needs to like watching sports.

Some people like sports and some people hate sports. Sports are not the problem nor is people liking them or hating them. The problem lies when either group takes it to the extremes and questions the worth of the other.

From this thread alone, I’d say there may be a positive correlation between anger management issues and guys wearing skirts. This is tongue firmly in cheek. But seriously trying to characterize men who wear skirts into one kind of person defeats the focus of this cafe. Haven’t we all been posting about not wanting to be grouped with other groups just for wearing a skirt???

[Stu]

You are incorrect. Roughness and aggression are the root of the problem! They serve no useful purpose. Who defines what it means to "behave like boys"? That is the problem in a nutshell. This "behave like boys" aggressive behavior has been passed down from generation to generation with thoughtless abandon. There is nothing natural about roughness and aggression. It is the reason that men go goofy with guns!

• Aggression is a fully natural human instinct. It is what gives weaker people the power to resist being pushed around, and to defend others.
  Aggression is the seat of competitiveness, and competition drives advancement of our species.
  Aggression is normal and healthy, but it needs to be channelled and used for good rather than ill. That's why we have certain types of sport.
  Aggression is not passed down through generations, except perhaps by our genes - it is innate.

One more point. If you and those of the same mind seek to eliminate the natural aggression of boys, that will be perceived as trying to feminise them. The vast majority of parents will not accept that and by attempting to do that, you will inspire a level of wrath - and yes, aggression - that should terrify you. Such a view will be seen as on the extreme and utterly intolerable end of "woke", and it discredits efforts by people like me who simply want to extend the sartorial choices for the 50% of the population who happen to be male. A great way to discourage men and boys from wearing skirts!

[Uncle Al]

... anger is not the problem, it is the way someone deals (or fails to deal)
with that anger which can cause a problem. Suppressing anger can lead to
even more anger but expressing it in a harmless way can help to dissipate it.

I AGREE 100%

You are incorrect. Roughness and aggression are the root of the problem!
They serve no useful purpose.

WRONG

Who defines what it means to "behave like boys"? That is the problem in a nutshell.
This "behave like boys" aggressive behavior has been passed down from generation
to generation with thoughtless abandon.
"There is nothing natural about roughness and aggression".

WRONG - Roughness and aggression is inherent to ALL species, especially humans.

It is the reason that men go goofy with guns!

Again, totally WRONG
Stu continues....

• Aggression is a fully natural human instinct. It is what gives weaker people the power to resist being pushed around, and to defend others.

• Aggression is the seat of competitiveness, and competition drives advancement of our species.
  Aggression is normal and healthy, but it needs to be chanelled and used for good rather than ill. That's why we have certain types of sport.
  Aggression is not passed down through generations, except perhaps by our genes - it is innate.

One more point. If you and those of the same mind seek to eliminate the natural aggression of boys,
that will be perceived as trying to feminize them. The vast majority of parents will not accept that
and by attempting to do that, you will inspire a level of wrath - and yes, aggression - that should
terrify you. Such a view will be seen as on the extreme and utterly intolerable end of "woke", and it discredits efforts by people like me who simply want to extend the sartorial choices for the 50% of
the population who happen to be male. A great way to discourage men and boys from wearing skirts!

Pelmut - Good Point

jamie001 - You're so far out of left field, you're not even in the parking lot.
Some may wonder what planet you are from.............

Stu, you're spot-on. Granted, some confusion exists in your choice of words but I get
the context of your thoughts.

I can tell that, reading the comments with-in this topic, some people enjoy 'pushing
the buttons of others' or 'pushing boundaries' that humanity needs to stay with-in.

Now - - May we all agree that this thread is heading into a heated battle,
possibly forcing a lock-down

May we leave this thread/topic alone, and let it die in peace

Uncle Al