Women are feminine. Without them, there is famine in men's life.
What are characteristics of men who are like women?
When a men loses his "manhood", he is said to become a woman.
There is then a famine in his malehood. And Famine malehood is disliked by most females.
The F word.
Effeminacy
Effeminacy is a trait in males that generally contradicts traditional male (masculine) gender roles.
It is a derogatory term frequently applied to femininity; or womanly behavior, demeanor, and appearance displayed by a man, typically used implying criticism or ridicule of this behavior (as opposed to, for example, merely describing a man as feminine, which is more neutral). The term effeminate is most often used by people who subscribe to the conventional view that men should conform to traditional masculine traits and behaviors. Generally, the description is applied to individuals, but may be used to describe entire societies as an inflammatory allegation. Although in the Western tradition, as described below, effeminacy has often been considered a vice, indicative of other negative character traits and often involving a pejorative insinuation of homosexual tendencies, in other societies men who do not conform to male gender roles may have a special social function, as is the case of Two-Spirits in some Native American groups. Furthermore, in contemporary culture, effeminacy has come to be seen by some to be simply one characteristic or trait which might be a part of a particular person's "gender role", and in this sense would not be considered a vice or indicative of any other characteristics. An effeminate man is similar to a fop or a dandy, though these tend to be archaic identities that are taken on by the individual rather than insulting labels.
In most cultures, effeminacy was traditionally considered, if not a vice, at least a weakness, indicative of other negative character traits and more recently often involving a negative insinuation of homosexual tendencies.
The definition of what constitutes effeminate behavior varies greatly depending on the social and cultural context, as well as on the time period. While some effeminate behavior evokes impressions of homosexuality in some people, others may simply view the behavior as "unmanly" without questioning the sexual orientation of the person in question.
Examples of behavior noncompliant with conventional masculinity have included:
Interest in women's fashion.
Discussing personal feelings and emotions with other males.
Speaking in a high voice, possibly with a lisp.
Cross-dressing or use of makeup.
There is a definite prejudice towards men who use femininity as part of their palate; their emotional palate, their physical palate. Is that changing? It’s changing in ways that don’t advance the cause of femininity. I’m not talking frilly-laced pink things or Hello Kitty stuff. I’m talking about goddess energy, intuition and feelings. That is still under attack, and it has gotten worse.
Effeminacy comes from the Latin, ex which is "out," and femina which means woman; it means "to be like a woman." The Latin term is mollities, meaning "softness."
The word effete similarly means effeminacy or over-refinement, but comes from the Latin effetus, from ex- + fetus (fruitful).
In ancient Koine Greek, the word for effeminate is kinaidos (cinaedus in its Latinized form), a man "whose most salient feature was a supposedly "feminine" love of being sexually penetrated by other men."
"A cinaedus is a man who cross-dresses or flirts like a girl. Indeed, the word's etymology suggests an indirect sexual act emenating a promisculous woman. This term has been borrowed from the Greek kinaidos, primarily signifying a purely effeminate dancer who entertained his audiences with a tympanum or tambourine in his hand, and adopted a lascivious style, often suggestively wiggling his buttocks in such a way as to suggest anal intercourse....The primary meaning of cinaedus never died out; the term never became a dead metaphor."
Other contemporary words for effeminacy include: "pansy", "nelly", "pretty boy", "pussy", and "girl" (when applied to a boy or, especially, adult man).
Being friends with women, having limp or loose wrists, a high and/or lispy voice, a swaying walk, occupations such as hairdressing, and hobbies and interests such as theater, musicals, or "domestic" activities such as design, sewing, or cleaning, are all often considered effeminate within various contexts.
Sissy
Because of its origins in a feminine nickname, sissy is also a pejorative for a boy or man to indicate or imply that he is like a sister, that is, effeminate and fails to behave according to the traditional male gender role. Generally, it implies a lack of the courage and stoicism which are thought important to the male role. It might also imply interests seen as strikingly un-masculine. This pejorative may be given to anyone as an insult. Several variations, such as "sissy boy" or "sissy baby", exist and any term can become pejorative or insulting if preceded by "sissy" and applied to a boy or a man.
Other similar terms include "wimp", "wuss" and "femboy".
See internet encyclopedia - Wikipedia
Comment: Women hold girly men in contempt. Only real men are respected. Ladies do not actually respect an idiot whom women can place under their thumb. Efs are undesirable by most girls.
2008
Tuesday
Women still look for a Real Man
-
Research shows that, although most women tolerate sissy boys, what they still really seek is real men.
British newspaper - The Sunday Times:
Where have all the "Real Men" gone?
Top American columnist Kathleen Parker is causing a furore with her new book "Save the Males", in which she argues that feminism has neutered men and deprived them of their noble, protective role in society
I know. Saving the males is an unlikely vocation for a 21st-century woman. Most men don’t know they need saving; most women consider the idea absurd. When I tell my women friends that I want to save the males, they look at me as if noticing for the first time that I am insane. Then they say something like: “Are you out of your mind? This is still a male-dominated world. It’s women who need saving. Screw the men!”
Actually, that’s a direct quote. The reality is that men already have been screwed – and not in the way they prefer. For the past 30 years or so, males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all of life’s ills. Males as a group – not random men – are bad by virtue of their DNA.
While women have been cast as victims, martyrs, mystics or saints, men have quietly retreated into their caves, the better to muffle emotions that fluctuate between hilarity (are these bitches crazy or what?) and rage (yes, they are and they’ve got our kids).
In the process of fashioning a more female-friendly world, we have created a culture that is hostile towards males, contemptuous of masculinity and cynical about the delightful differences that make men irresistible, especially when something goes bump in the night.
In popular culture, rare is the man portrayed as wise, strong and noble. In film and music, men are variously portrayed as dolts, bullies, brutes, deadbeats, rapists, sexual predators and wife-beaters. Even otherwise easy-going family men in sitcoms are invariably cast as, at best, bumbling, dim-witted fools. One would assume from most depictions that the smart, decent man who cares about his family and pats the neighbour’s dog is the exception rather than the rule.
I am frankly an unlikely champion of males and that most hackneyed cliché of our times – “traditional family values”. Or rather, I’m an expert on family in the same way that the captain of the Titanic was an expert on maritime navigation.
Looking back affectionately, I like to think of home as our own little Baghdad. The bunker-buster was my mother’s death when she was 31 and I was three, whereupon my father became a serial husband, launching into the holy state of matrimony four more times throughout my childhood and early adulthood. We were dysfunctional before dysfunctional was cool.
Going against trends of the day, I was mostly an only child raised by a single father through all but one of my teen years, with mother figures in various cameo roles. I got a close-up glimpse of how the sexes trouble and fail each other and in the process developed great em-pathy for both, but especially for men.
Although my father could be difficult – I wasn’t blinded by his considerable charms – I also could see his struggle and the sorrows he suffered, especially after mother No 2 left with his youngest daughter, my little sister.
From this broad, experiential education in the ways of men and women, I reached a helpful conclusion that seems to have escaped notice by some of my fellow sisters: men are human beings, too.
Lest anyone infer that my defence of men is driven by antipathy towards women, let me take a moment to point out that I liked and/or loved all my mothers. In fact, I’m still close to all my father’s wives except the last, who is just a few years older than me and who is apparently afraid that if we make eye contact, I’ll want the silver. (I do.)
My further education in matters male transpired in the course of raising three boys, my own and two stepsons. As a result of my total immersion in male-dom, I’ve been cursed with guy vision – and it’s not looking so good out there.
At the same time that men have been ridiculed, the importance of fatherhood has been diminished, along with other traditionally male roles of father, protector and provider, which are increasingly viewed as regressive manifestations of an outmoded patriarchy.
The exemplar of the modern male is the hairless, metrosexualised man and decorator boys who turn heter-osexual slobs into perfumed ponies. All of which is fine as long as we can dwell happily in the Kingdom of Starbucks, munching our biscotti and debating whether nature or nurture determines gender identity. But in the dangerous world in which we really live, it might be nice to have a few guys around who aren’t trying to juggle pedicures and highlights.
Men have been domesticated to within an inch of their lives, attending Lamaze classes, counting contractions, bottling expressed breast milk for midnight feedings – I expect men to start lactating before I finish this sentence – yet they are treated most unfairly in the areas of reproduction and parenting.
Legally, women hold the cards. If a woman gets pregnant, she can abort – even without her husband’s consent. If she chooses to have the child, she gets a baby and the man gets an invoice. Unarguably, a man should support his offspring, but by that same logic shouldn’t he have a say in whether his child is born or aborted?
Granted, many men are all too grateful for women to handle the collateral damage of poorly planned romantic interludes, but that doesn’t negate the fact that many men are hurt by the presumption that their vote is irrelevant in childbearing decisions.
NOTHING quite says “Men need not apply” like a phial of mail-order sperm Continued on page 2 Continued from page 1 and a turkey-baster. In the high-tech nursery of sperm donation and self-insemination – and in the absence of shame attached to unwed motherhood – babies can now be custom-ordered without the muss and fuss of human intimacy.
It’s not fashionable to question women’s decisions, especially when it comes to childbearing, but the shame attached to unwed motherhood did serve a useful purpose once upon a time. While we have happily retired the word “bastard” and the attendant emotional pain for mother and child, acceptance of childbearing outside marriage represents not just a huge shift in attitudes but, potentially, a restructuring of the future human family.
By elevating single motherhood from an unfortunate consequence of poor planning to a sophisticated act of self-fulfilment, we have helped to fashion a world in which fathers are not just scarce but in which men are also superfluous.
Lots of women can, do and always will raise children without fathers, whether out of necessity, tragedy or other circumstance. But that fact can’t logically be construed to mean that children don’t need a father. The fact that some children manage with just one parent is no more an endorsement of single parenthood than driving with a flat tyre is an argument for three-wheeled cars.
For most of recorded history, human society has regarded the family, consisting of a child’s biological mother and father, to be the best arrangement for the child’s wellbeing and the loss of a parent to be the single greatest threat to that wellbeing. There’s bound to be a reason for this beyond the need for man to drag his woman around by her chignon.
Sperm-donor children are a relatively new addition to the human community and they bring new stories to the campfire. I interviewed several adults who are the products of sperm donation. Some were born to married but infertile couples. Others were born to single mothers. Some reported well-adjusted childhoods; some reported conflicting feelings of love and loss.
Overall, a common thread emerged that should put to rest any notion that fathers are not needed: even the happiest donor children expressed a profound need to know who their father is, to know that other part of themselves.
Tom Ellis, a mathematics doctoral student at Cambridge University, learnt at 21 that he and his brother were both donor-conceived. Their parents told them on the advice of a family therapist as their marriage unravelled.
At first Tom did not react, but months later he hit a wall of emotional devastation. He says he became numb, anxious and scared. He began a search for his biological father, a search that has become a crusade for identity common among sperm-donor children.
“It’s absolutely necessary that I find out who he is to have a normal existence as a human being. That’s not negotiable in any way,” Tom said. “It would be nice if he wanted to meet me, but that would be something I want rather than something needed.”
Tom is convinced that the need to know one’s biological father is profound and that it is also every child’s right. What is clear from conversations with donor-conceived children is that a father is neither an abstract idea nor is he interchangeable with a mother.
As Tom put it: “There’s a mystery about oneself.” Knowing one’s father is apparently crucial to that mystery.
Something that’s hard for many women to admit or understand is that after about the age of seven, boys prefer the company of men. A woman could know the secret code to Aladdin’s cave and it would be less interesting to a boy than a man talking about dirt. That is because a woman is perceived as just another mother, while a man is Man.
From their mothers, boys basically want to hear variations on two phrases: “I love you” and “Do you want those fried or scrambled?” I learnt this in no uncertain terms when I was a Cub Scout leader, which mysteriously seems to have prompted my son’s decision to abandon Scouting for ever.
My co-Akela (Cub Scout for wolf leader) was Dr Judy Sullivan – friend, fellow mother and clinical psychologist. Imagine the boys’ excitement when they learnt who would be leading them in guy pursuits: a reporter and a shrink – two intense, overachieving, helicopter mothers of only boys. Shouldn’t there be a law against this?
We had our boys’ best interests at heart, of course, and did our utmost to be good den mothers. But seven-year-old boys are not interested in making lanterns from coffee tins. They want to shoot bows and arrows, preferably at one another, chop wood with stone-hewn axes and sink canoes, preferably while in them.
At the end of a school day, during which they have been steeped in oestrogen by women teachers and told how many “bad choices” they’ve made, boys are ready to make some really bad choices. They do not want to sit quietly and listen to yet more women speak soothingly of important things.
Here’s how one memorable meeting began. “Boys, thank you for taking your seats and being quiet while we explain our women’s history month project,” said Akela Sullivan in her calmest psychotherapist voice. The response to Akela Sullivan’s entreaty sounded something like the Zulu nation psyching up for the Brits.
I tried a different, somewhat more masculine approach: “Boys, get in here, sit down and shut up. Now!” And lo, they did get in there. And they did sit. And they did shut up. One boy stargazed into my face and stage-whispered: “I wish you were my mother.”
Akela Sullivan and I put our heads together, epiphanised in unison and decided that we would recruit transients from the homeless shelter if necessary to give these boys what they wanted and needed – men.
As luck would have it, a Cub Scout’s father was semi-retired or between jobs or something – we didn’t ask – and could attend the meetings. He didn’t have to do a thing. He just had to be there and respire testosterone vapours into the atmosphere.
His presence shifted the tectonic plates and changed the angle of the Earth on its axis. Our boys were at his command, ready to disarm landmines, to sink enemy ships – or even to sit quietly for the sake of the unit if he of the gravelly voice and sandpaper face wished it so. I suspect they would have found coffee tins brilliantly useful as lanterns if he had suggested as much.
But, of course, boys don’t stay Cub Scouts for long. We’ve managed over the past 20 years or so to create a new generation of child-men, perpetual adolescents who see no point in growing up. By indulging every appetite instead of recognising the importance of self-control and commitment, we’ve ratified the id.
Our society’s young men encounter little resistance against continuing to celebrate juvenile pursuits, losing themselves in video games and mindless, “guy-oriented” TV fare – and casual sex.
The casual sex culture prevalent on university campuses – and even in schools – has produced fresh vocabulary to accommodate new ways of relating: “friends with benefits” and “booty call”.
FWB I get, but “booty call”? I had to ask a young friend, who explained: “Oh, that’s when a guy calls you up and just needs you to come over and have sex with him and then go home.”
Why, I asked, would a girl do such a thing? Why would she service a man for nothing – no relationship, no affection, no emotional intimacy?
She pointed out that, well, they are friends. With benefits! But no obligations! Cool. When I persisted in demanding an answer to “why”, she finally shrugged and said: “I have no idea. It’s dumb.”
Guys also have no idea why a girl would do that, but they’re not complaining – even if they’re not enjoying themselves that much, either.
Miriam Grossman, a university psychiatrist, wrote Unprotected, a book about the consequences of casual sex among students. She has treated thousands of young men and women suffering a range of physical and emotional problems related to sex, which she blames on sex education of recent years that treats sex as though it were divorced from emotional attachment and as if men and women were the same. Grossman asserts that there are a lot more victims of the hookup (casual sex) culture than of date rape.
Casual sex, besides being emotionally unrewarding, can become physically boring. Once sex is stripped of meaning, it becomes merely a mechanical exercise. Since the hookup generation is also the porn generation, many have taken their performance cues from porn flicks that are anything but sensual or caring.
Boys today are marinating in pornography and they’ll soon be having casual sex with our daughters. According to a study by the National Foundation for Educational Research issued in 2005, 12% of British males aged 13-18 avail themselves of “adult-only” websites; and American research findings are similar. The actual numbers are likely to be much higher, given the amount of porn spam that finds its way into electronic mailboxes. If the rising generation of young men have trouble viewing the opposite sex as anything but an object for sexual gratification, we can’t pretend not to understand why.
The biggest problem for both sexes – beyond the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease – is that casual sex is essentially an adversarial enterprise that pits men and women against each other. Some young women, now fully as sexually aggressive as men, have taken “liberation” to another level by acting as badly as the worst guy.
Carol Platt Liebau, the author of Prude, another book on the havoc that pervasive sex has on young people, says that when girls begin behaving more coarsely so, too, do boys.
“And now, because so many young girls have been told that it’s ‘empowering’ to pursue boys aggressively, there’s no longer any need for boys to ‘woo’ girls – or even to commit to a date,” she told me. “The girls are available [in every sense of the word] and the boys know it.”
Men, meanwhile, have feelings. Although they’re uncomfortable sorting through them – and generally won’t if no one insists – I’ve listened to enough of them to know that our hypersexualised world has left many feeling limp and vacant.
Our cultural assumption that men only want sex has been as damaging to them as to the women they target. Here is how a recent graduate summed it up to me: “Hooking up is great, but at some point you get tired of everything meaning nothing.”
Ultimately, what our oversexualised, pornified culture reveals is that we think very little of our male family members. Undergirding the culture that feminism has helped to craft is a presumption that men are without honour and integrity. What we offer men is cheap, dirty, sleazy, manipulative sensation. What we expect from them is boorish, simian behaviour that ratifies the antimale sentiment that runs through the culture.
Surely our boys – and our girls – deserve better.
As long as men feel marginalised by the women whose favours and approval they seek; as long as they are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by family courts; as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honour; and as long as boys are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.
In the coming years we will need men who are not confused about their responsibilities. We need boys who have acquired the virtues of honour, courage, valour and loyalty. We need women willing to let men be men – and boys be boys. And we need young men and women who will commit and marry and raise children in stable homes.
Unprogressive though it sounds, the world in which we live requires no less.
Saving the males – engaging their nobility and recognising their unique strengths – will ultimately benefit women and children, too. Fewer will live in poverty; fewer boys will fail in schools and wind up in jail; fewer girls will get pregnant or suffer emotional damage from too early sex with uncaring boys. Fewer young men and women will suffer loneliness and loss because they’ve grown up in a climate of sexual hostility that casts the opposite sex as either villain or victim.
Then again, maybe I’m completely wrong. Maybe males don’t need saving and women are never happier or more liberated than when dancing with a stripper pole. Maybe women should man the barricades and men should warm the milk. Maybe men are not necessary and women can manage just fine without them. Maybe human nature has been nurtured into submission and males and females are completely interchangeable.
But I don’t think so. When women say, “No, honey, you stay in bed. I’ll go see what that noise is” – I’ll reconsider.
"Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care", by Kathleen Parker
Comment: Miss Parker is blaming women for existence of pussies. Its not true. A real man would never turn into a sissy. Its that man who is ALREADY a sissy, that transforms into a pussy.
2008
-
Research shows that, although most women tolerate sissy boys, what they still really seek is real men.
British newspaper - The Sunday Times:
Where have all the "Real Men" gone?
Top American columnist Kathleen Parker is causing a furore with her new book "Save the Males", in which she argues that feminism has neutered men and deprived them of their noble, protective role in society
I know. Saving the males is an unlikely vocation for a 21st-century woman. Most men don’t know they need saving; most women consider the idea absurd. When I tell my women friends that I want to save the males, they look at me as if noticing for the first time that I am insane. Then they say something like: “Are you out of your mind? This is still a male-dominated world. It’s women who need saving. Screw the men!”
Actually, that’s a direct quote. The reality is that men already have been screwed – and not in the way they prefer. For the past 30 years or so, males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all of life’s ills. Males as a group – not random men – are bad by virtue of their DNA.
While women have been cast as victims, martyrs, mystics or saints, men have quietly retreated into their caves, the better to muffle emotions that fluctuate between hilarity (are these bitches crazy or what?) and rage (yes, they are and they’ve got our kids).
In the process of fashioning a more female-friendly world, we have created a culture that is hostile towards males, contemptuous of masculinity and cynical about the delightful differences that make men irresistible, especially when something goes bump in the night.
In popular culture, rare is the man portrayed as wise, strong and noble. In film and music, men are variously portrayed as dolts, bullies, brutes, deadbeats, rapists, sexual predators and wife-beaters. Even otherwise easy-going family men in sitcoms are invariably cast as, at best, bumbling, dim-witted fools. One would assume from most depictions that the smart, decent man who cares about his family and pats the neighbour’s dog is the exception rather than the rule.
I am frankly an unlikely champion of males and that most hackneyed cliché of our times – “traditional family values”. Or rather, I’m an expert on family in the same way that the captain of the Titanic was an expert on maritime navigation.
Looking back affectionately, I like to think of home as our own little Baghdad. The bunker-buster was my mother’s death when she was 31 and I was three, whereupon my father became a serial husband, launching into the holy state of matrimony four more times throughout my childhood and early adulthood. We were dysfunctional before dysfunctional was cool.
Going against trends of the day, I was mostly an only child raised by a single father through all but one of my teen years, with mother figures in various cameo roles. I got a close-up glimpse of how the sexes trouble and fail each other and in the process developed great em-pathy for both, but especially for men.
Although my father could be difficult – I wasn’t blinded by his considerable charms – I also could see his struggle and the sorrows he suffered, especially after mother No 2 left with his youngest daughter, my little sister.
From this broad, experiential education in the ways of men and women, I reached a helpful conclusion that seems to have escaped notice by some of my fellow sisters: men are human beings, too.
Lest anyone infer that my defence of men is driven by antipathy towards women, let me take a moment to point out that I liked and/or loved all my mothers. In fact, I’m still close to all my father’s wives except the last, who is just a few years older than me and who is apparently afraid that if we make eye contact, I’ll want the silver. (I do.)
My further education in matters male transpired in the course of raising three boys, my own and two stepsons. As a result of my total immersion in male-dom, I’ve been cursed with guy vision – and it’s not looking so good out there.
At the same time that men have been ridiculed, the importance of fatherhood has been diminished, along with other traditionally male roles of father, protector and provider, which are increasingly viewed as regressive manifestations of an outmoded patriarchy.
The exemplar of the modern male is the hairless, metrosexualised man and decorator boys who turn heter-osexual slobs into perfumed ponies. All of which is fine as long as we can dwell happily in the Kingdom of Starbucks, munching our biscotti and debating whether nature or nurture determines gender identity. But in the dangerous world in which we really live, it might be nice to have a few guys around who aren’t trying to juggle pedicures and highlights.
Men have been domesticated to within an inch of their lives, attending Lamaze classes, counting contractions, bottling expressed breast milk for midnight feedings – I expect men to start lactating before I finish this sentence – yet they are treated most unfairly in the areas of reproduction and parenting.
Legally, women hold the cards. If a woman gets pregnant, she can abort – even without her husband’s consent. If she chooses to have the child, she gets a baby and the man gets an invoice. Unarguably, a man should support his offspring, but by that same logic shouldn’t he have a say in whether his child is born or aborted?
Granted, many men are all too grateful for women to handle the collateral damage of poorly planned romantic interludes, but that doesn’t negate the fact that many men are hurt by the presumption that their vote is irrelevant in childbearing decisions.
NOTHING quite says “Men need not apply” like a phial of mail-order sperm Continued on page 2 Continued from page 1 and a turkey-baster. In the high-tech nursery of sperm donation and self-insemination – and in the absence of shame attached to unwed motherhood – babies can now be custom-ordered without the muss and fuss of human intimacy.
It’s not fashionable to question women’s decisions, especially when it comes to childbearing, but the shame attached to unwed motherhood did serve a useful purpose once upon a time. While we have happily retired the word “bastard” and the attendant emotional pain for mother and child, acceptance of childbearing outside marriage represents not just a huge shift in attitudes but, potentially, a restructuring of the future human family.
By elevating single motherhood from an unfortunate consequence of poor planning to a sophisticated act of self-fulfilment, we have helped to fashion a world in which fathers are not just scarce but in which men are also superfluous.
Lots of women can, do and always will raise children without fathers, whether out of necessity, tragedy or other circumstance. But that fact can’t logically be construed to mean that children don’t need a father. The fact that some children manage with just one parent is no more an endorsement of single parenthood than driving with a flat tyre is an argument for three-wheeled cars.
For most of recorded history, human society has regarded the family, consisting of a child’s biological mother and father, to be the best arrangement for the child’s wellbeing and the loss of a parent to be the single greatest threat to that wellbeing. There’s bound to be a reason for this beyond the need for man to drag his woman around by her chignon.
Sperm-donor children are a relatively new addition to the human community and they bring new stories to the campfire. I interviewed several adults who are the products of sperm donation. Some were born to married but infertile couples. Others were born to single mothers. Some reported well-adjusted childhoods; some reported conflicting feelings of love and loss.
Overall, a common thread emerged that should put to rest any notion that fathers are not needed: even the happiest donor children expressed a profound need to know who their father is, to know that other part of themselves.
Tom Ellis, a mathematics doctoral student at Cambridge University, learnt at 21 that he and his brother were both donor-conceived. Their parents told them on the advice of a family therapist as their marriage unravelled.
At first Tom did not react, but months later he hit a wall of emotional devastation. He says he became numb, anxious and scared. He began a search for his biological father, a search that has become a crusade for identity common among sperm-donor children.
“It’s absolutely necessary that I find out who he is to have a normal existence as a human being. That’s not negotiable in any way,” Tom said. “It would be nice if he wanted to meet me, but that would be something I want rather than something needed.”
Tom is convinced that the need to know one’s biological father is profound and that it is also every child’s right. What is clear from conversations with donor-conceived children is that a father is neither an abstract idea nor is he interchangeable with a mother.
As Tom put it: “There’s a mystery about oneself.” Knowing one’s father is apparently crucial to that mystery.
Something that’s hard for many women to admit or understand is that after about the age of seven, boys prefer the company of men. A woman could know the secret code to Aladdin’s cave and it would be less interesting to a boy than a man talking about dirt. That is because a woman is perceived as just another mother, while a man is Man.
From their mothers, boys basically want to hear variations on two phrases: “I love you” and “Do you want those fried or scrambled?” I learnt this in no uncertain terms when I was a Cub Scout leader, which mysteriously seems to have prompted my son’s decision to abandon Scouting for ever.
My co-Akela (Cub Scout for wolf leader) was Dr Judy Sullivan – friend, fellow mother and clinical psychologist. Imagine the boys’ excitement when they learnt who would be leading them in guy pursuits: a reporter and a shrink – two intense, overachieving, helicopter mothers of only boys. Shouldn’t there be a law against this?
We had our boys’ best interests at heart, of course, and did our utmost to be good den mothers. But seven-year-old boys are not interested in making lanterns from coffee tins. They want to shoot bows and arrows, preferably at one another, chop wood with stone-hewn axes and sink canoes, preferably while in them.
At the end of a school day, during which they have been steeped in oestrogen by women teachers and told how many “bad choices” they’ve made, boys are ready to make some really bad choices. They do not want to sit quietly and listen to yet more women speak soothingly of important things.
Here’s how one memorable meeting began. “Boys, thank you for taking your seats and being quiet while we explain our women’s history month project,” said Akela Sullivan in her calmest psychotherapist voice. The response to Akela Sullivan’s entreaty sounded something like the Zulu nation psyching up for the Brits.
I tried a different, somewhat more masculine approach: “Boys, get in here, sit down and shut up. Now!” And lo, they did get in there. And they did sit. And they did shut up. One boy stargazed into my face and stage-whispered: “I wish you were my mother.”
Akela Sullivan and I put our heads together, epiphanised in unison and decided that we would recruit transients from the homeless shelter if necessary to give these boys what they wanted and needed – men.
As luck would have it, a Cub Scout’s father was semi-retired or between jobs or something – we didn’t ask – and could attend the meetings. He didn’t have to do a thing. He just had to be there and respire testosterone vapours into the atmosphere.
His presence shifted the tectonic plates and changed the angle of the Earth on its axis. Our boys were at his command, ready to disarm landmines, to sink enemy ships – or even to sit quietly for the sake of the unit if he of the gravelly voice and sandpaper face wished it so. I suspect they would have found coffee tins brilliantly useful as lanterns if he had suggested as much.
But, of course, boys don’t stay Cub Scouts for long. We’ve managed over the past 20 years or so to create a new generation of child-men, perpetual adolescents who see no point in growing up. By indulging every appetite instead of recognising the importance of self-control and commitment, we’ve ratified the id.
Our society’s young men encounter little resistance against continuing to celebrate juvenile pursuits, losing themselves in video games and mindless, “guy-oriented” TV fare – and casual sex.
The casual sex culture prevalent on university campuses – and even in schools – has produced fresh vocabulary to accommodate new ways of relating: “friends with benefits” and “booty call”.
FWB I get, but “booty call”? I had to ask a young friend, who explained: “Oh, that’s when a guy calls you up and just needs you to come over and have sex with him and then go home.”
Why, I asked, would a girl do such a thing? Why would she service a man for nothing – no relationship, no affection, no emotional intimacy?
She pointed out that, well, they are friends. With benefits! But no obligations! Cool. When I persisted in demanding an answer to “why”, she finally shrugged and said: “I have no idea. It’s dumb.”
Guys also have no idea why a girl would do that, but they’re not complaining – even if they’re not enjoying themselves that much, either.
Miriam Grossman, a university psychiatrist, wrote Unprotected, a book about the consequences of casual sex among students. She has treated thousands of young men and women suffering a range of physical and emotional problems related to sex, which she blames on sex education of recent years that treats sex as though it were divorced from emotional attachment and as if men and women were the same. Grossman asserts that there are a lot more victims of the hookup (casual sex) culture than of date rape.
Casual sex, besides being emotionally unrewarding, can become physically boring. Once sex is stripped of meaning, it becomes merely a mechanical exercise. Since the hookup generation is also the porn generation, many have taken their performance cues from porn flicks that are anything but sensual or caring.
Boys today are marinating in pornography and they’ll soon be having casual sex with our daughters. According to a study by the National Foundation for Educational Research issued in 2005, 12% of British males aged 13-18 avail themselves of “adult-only” websites; and American research findings are similar. The actual numbers are likely to be much higher, given the amount of porn spam that finds its way into electronic mailboxes. If the rising generation of young men have trouble viewing the opposite sex as anything but an object for sexual gratification, we can’t pretend not to understand why.
The biggest problem for both sexes – beyond the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease – is that casual sex is essentially an adversarial enterprise that pits men and women against each other. Some young women, now fully as sexually aggressive as men, have taken “liberation” to another level by acting as badly as the worst guy.
Carol Platt Liebau, the author of Prude, another book on the havoc that pervasive sex has on young people, says that when girls begin behaving more coarsely so, too, do boys.
“And now, because so many young girls have been told that it’s ‘empowering’ to pursue boys aggressively, there’s no longer any need for boys to ‘woo’ girls – or even to commit to a date,” she told me. “The girls are available [in every sense of the word] and the boys know it.”
Men, meanwhile, have feelings. Although they’re uncomfortable sorting through them – and generally won’t if no one insists – I’ve listened to enough of them to know that our hypersexualised world has left many feeling limp and vacant.
Our cultural assumption that men only want sex has been as damaging to them as to the women they target. Here is how a recent graduate summed it up to me: “Hooking up is great, but at some point you get tired of everything meaning nothing.”
Ultimately, what our oversexualised, pornified culture reveals is that we think very little of our male family members. Undergirding the culture that feminism has helped to craft is a presumption that men are without honour and integrity. What we offer men is cheap, dirty, sleazy, manipulative sensation. What we expect from them is boorish, simian behaviour that ratifies the antimale sentiment that runs through the culture.
Surely our boys – and our girls – deserve better.
As long as men feel marginalised by the women whose favours and approval they seek; as long as they are alienated from their children and treated as criminals by family courts; as long as they are disrespected by a culture that no longer values masculinity tied to honour; and as long as boys are bereft of strong fathers and our young men and women wage sexual war, then we risk cultural suicide.
In the coming years we will need men who are not confused about their responsibilities. We need boys who have acquired the virtues of honour, courage, valour and loyalty. We need women willing to let men be men – and boys be boys. And we need young men and women who will commit and marry and raise children in stable homes.
Unprogressive though it sounds, the world in which we live requires no less.
Saving the males – engaging their nobility and recognising their unique strengths – will ultimately benefit women and children, too. Fewer will live in poverty; fewer boys will fail in schools and wind up in jail; fewer girls will get pregnant or suffer emotional damage from too early sex with uncaring boys. Fewer young men and women will suffer loneliness and loss because they’ve grown up in a climate of sexual hostility that casts the opposite sex as either villain or victim.
Then again, maybe I’m completely wrong. Maybe males don’t need saving and women are never happier or more liberated than when dancing with a stripper pole. Maybe women should man the barricades and men should warm the milk. Maybe men are not necessary and women can manage just fine without them. Maybe human nature has been nurtured into submission and males and females are completely interchangeable.
But I don’t think so. When women say, “No, honey, you stay in bed. I’ll go see what that noise is” – I’ll reconsider.
"Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care", by Kathleen Parker
Comment: Miss Parker is blaming women for existence of pussies. Its not true. A real man would never turn into a sissy. Its that man who is ALREADY a sissy, that transforms into a pussy.
2008
-
Sissy boys pushed by women
Media gives discription of sissy boys.
Women still long for real men.
British newspaper - The Daily Mail:
Men "allowed women" to turn them into "sissies"
They must now rediscover their masculine side
R.I.P. MEN: They earn less, are "pushed around" and reduced to sex objects...
It's a subject guaranteed to provoke the fiercest of debates: whether men have been emasculated and marginalised by feminism and the march of women professionally and educationally. It's the question at the heart of a controversial new book, The Decline Of Men by Guy Garcia, which is making waves in America. So is he right?
Our columnist believes so - at least in part. Here, a leading female commentator giving her very different opinion.
It certainly says something about the dizzy new heights we've reached in bloke-bashing when a book such as The Decline Of Men could get published at all.
Imagine an author turning up with their latest manuscript containing arguments such as: 'At the dawn of the 21st century, men are not just the weaker sex, they are also fast on their way to becoming poorer, dumber, sicker, lonelier. More marginal, more unnecessary, less loved.'
Weaker sex? Say that about a woman, or call black Americans a weaker race, and you'd be rightly castigated.
But The Decline Of Men does, amid a lot of silliness about the so-called testosterone drain, contain some uncomfortable truths for our beloved brothers.
It is, for example, undeniably correct in saying that 'the classic male virtues - physical strength, aggression, self-sufficiency, resolve - that were so useful in agrarian and industrial societies, are increasingly out of date in the post-modern world where networking, co-operation and communication are key'.
Men may choose to shimmy about with their exfoliated, rehydrated skin carrying their Prada manbags and waxing their backs, but as any woman knows, such high maintenance takes a big chunk out of the working day. Looking like David Beckham is a fulltime career.
But perhaps what we should be asking is: who turned men into sissies?
The answer to that is we women. Women wilfully feminised men to make them less masculine, less challenging to our ambitions, less competition for us. We emasculated them.
As a result, we've destroyed the core of their being, their masculinity. We've led them astray and away from the very qualities we intrinsically find most attractive in a man.
We told them we loved their feminine side, then came to despise it. We convinced them we wanted to be equal breadwinners, then began to resent it.
We loved the idea of earning more than our men, more than any man, yet lost respect for them when it was us bringing home the bacon.
But men have been culpable in all this, too. Sure, we gave them a social duffing up, but they gave in to it. The feminisation process sneakily appealed to their intrinsic vanity, and sharing the career workload played to many men's innate laziness.
I disagree with Garcia when he says 'men aren't giving up - they're being run over because they're lazy and can't multi-task'.
There is nothing more energised, more vital than a man who is loved and respected for being a successful man, a provider and a father.
But partly because of the way women have systematically traduced men and their manliness, partly because of the way we as a society have feted and institutionalised single motherhood, from the council estate to the boardroom, we haven't left much for men to do or be that is unique to them.
Even the education system is now skewed against them. Garcia is correct when he says that girls are outperforming boys at school, but it's not because they are brighter or more adept at surviving in a post-modern world, but because of the liberal engineering of state education that has made it more sympathetic to girls' learning skills and less so to those of boys.
And with the huge increase in university-educated girls, there is a social timebomb ticking.
In America, over the past 25 years the number of female undergraduates has grown more than twice as fast as their male counterparts.
According to Garcia, by 2006 women outnumbered men on American college campuses by more than two million.
Again, if the tables were turned and women were wildly outnumbered today in universities and if men were overtaking their achievements, there would be an outcry.
The feminists view the current state of play in the war of the sexes as a great victory - they feel it proves they were right and that women were smarter than men all along.
But it's like two armies locked in battle, one armed with bayonets, the other with Kalashnikovs. It's not been a fair fight.
One survey Garcia cites shows that, on average, females between the ages of 21 and 30 earned 117 per cent of males' wages in the same group.
And while women's wages have soared, wages for men have declined.
'Men are not just getting poorer, they're also getting dumber,' he says. And he's right. Beneath the lip gloss of metrosexual modern male, men are in trouble.
Men of all ages are becoming increasingly 'angry, suspicious, reactionary and isolated' because women have treated the men's natural roles without respect.
Who wouldn't become reactionary when all that you knew had been demeaned, taken from you or chipped away?
Who wouldn't feel isolated when society had institutionalised fatherlessness, thus eradicating the most vital and enhancing role any man can play in his life?
Garcia goes so far as to argue that the roles have flipped so much from the way they were, say, 50 years ago - and that men have become so emasculated and feminised - that 'men are the new women'.
If that's true, and sadly it is for some men, then women have a lot to answer for. And perhaps the greatest irony is that it's us who are the losers in the end.
You show me a woman who isn't attracted by strength, success, masculinity and I'll show you a lesbian.
Garcia argues that it is 'an undeniable reality that women are poised to become the dominant gender in America, and in many ways already are'.
With men already in decline, it's only going to get worse. Deep in a recession with so many jobs at risk, a man's native, competitive provider survival spirit has never been more necessary to millions of families' survival, and yet never have these qualities been so systematically diminished.
So when we most need men to be men, we've created a disproportionate number of men who are more pussycats than lions. Perhaps the real Decline Of Men has only just begun.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, they'll throw off their Prada, ditch the pedicures, stop crying and get in touch with their masculine side again. We can only hope.
Comment: Most of the men in society have now turned into sissies. They get pushed around by women. They are not real men. Ladies still long for the real thing. They hate pussies.
2008
Women still long for real men.
British newspaper - The Daily Mail:
Men "allowed women" to turn them into "sissies"
They must now rediscover their masculine side
R.I.P. MEN: They earn less, are "pushed around" and reduced to sex objects...
It's a subject guaranteed to provoke the fiercest of debates: whether men have been emasculated and marginalised by feminism and the march of women professionally and educationally. It's the question at the heart of a controversial new book, The Decline Of Men by Guy Garcia, which is making waves in America. So is he right?
Our columnist believes so - at least in part. Here, a leading female commentator giving her very different opinion.
It certainly says something about the dizzy new heights we've reached in bloke-bashing when a book such as The Decline Of Men could get published at all.
Imagine an author turning up with their latest manuscript containing arguments such as: 'At the dawn of the 21st century, men are not just the weaker sex, they are also fast on their way to becoming poorer, dumber, sicker, lonelier. More marginal, more unnecessary, less loved.'
Weaker sex? Say that about a woman, or call black Americans a weaker race, and you'd be rightly castigated.
But The Decline Of Men does, amid a lot of silliness about the so-called testosterone drain, contain some uncomfortable truths for our beloved brothers.
It is, for example, undeniably correct in saying that 'the classic male virtues - physical strength, aggression, self-sufficiency, resolve - that were so useful in agrarian and industrial societies, are increasingly out of date in the post-modern world where networking, co-operation and communication are key'.
Men may choose to shimmy about with their exfoliated, rehydrated skin carrying their Prada manbags and waxing their backs, but as any woman knows, such high maintenance takes a big chunk out of the working day. Looking like David Beckham is a fulltime career.
But perhaps what we should be asking is: who turned men into sissies?
The answer to that is we women. Women wilfully feminised men to make them less masculine, less challenging to our ambitions, less competition for us. We emasculated them.
As a result, we've destroyed the core of their being, their masculinity. We've led them astray and away from the very qualities we intrinsically find most attractive in a man.
We told them we loved their feminine side, then came to despise it. We convinced them we wanted to be equal breadwinners, then began to resent it.
We loved the idea of earning more than our men, more than any man, yet lost respect for them when it was us bringing home the bacon.
But men have been culpable in all this, too. Sure, we gave them a social duffing up, but they gave in to it. The feminisation process sneakily appealed to their intrinsic vanity, and sharing the career workload played to many men's innate laziness.
I disagree with Garcia when he says 'men aren't giving up - they're being run over because they're lazy and can't multi-task'.
There is nothing more energised, more vital than a man who is loved and respected for being a successful man, a provider and a father.
But partly because of the way women have systematically traduced men and their manliness, partly because of the way we as a society have feted and institutionalised single motherhood, from the council estate to the boardroom, we haven't left much for men to do or be that is unique to them.
Even the education system is now skewed against them. Garcia is correct when he says that girls are outperforming boys at school, but it's not because they are brighter or more adept at surviving in a post-modern world, but because of the liberal engineering of state education that has made it more sympathetic to girls' learning skills and less so to those of boys.
And with the huge increase in university-educated girls, there is a social timebomb ticking.
In America, over the past 25 years the number of female undergraduates has grown more than twice as fast as their male counterparts.
According to Garcia, by 2006 women outnumbered men on American college campuses by more than two million.
Again, if the tables were turned and women were wildly outnumbered today in universities and if men were overtaking their achievements, there would be an outcry.
The feminists view the current state of play in the war of the sexes as a great victory - they feel it proves they were right and that women were smarter than men all along.
But it's like two armies locked in battle, one armed with bayonets, the other with Kalashnikovs. It's not been a fair fight.
One survey Garcia cites shows that, on average, females between the ages of 21 and 30 earned 117 per cent of males' wages in the same group.
And while women's wages have soared, wages for men have declined.
'Men are not just getting poorer, they're also getting dumber,' he says. And he's right. Beneath the lip gloss of metrosexual modern male, men are in trouble.
Men of all ages are becoming increasingly 'angry, suspicious, reactionary and isolated' because women have treated the men's natural roles without respect.
Who wouldn't become reactionary when all that you knew had been demeaned, taken from you or chipped away?
Who wouldn't feel isolated when society had institutionalised fatherlessness, thus eradicating the most vital and enhancing role any man can play in his life?
Garcia goes so far as to argue that the roles have flipped so much from the way they were, say, 50 years ago - and that men have become so emasculated and feminised - that 'men are the new women'.
If that's true, and sadly it is for some men, then women have a lot to answer for. And perhaps the greatest irony is that it's us who are the losers in the end.
You show me a woman who isn't attracted by strength, success, masculinity and I'll show you a lesbian.
Garcia argues that it is 'an undeniable reality that women are poised to become the dominant gender in America, and in many ways already are'.
With men already in decline, it's only going to get worse. Deep in a recession with so many jobs at risk, a man's native, competitive provider survival spirit has never been more necessary to millions of families' survival, and yet never have these qualities been so systematically diminished.
So when we most need men to be men, we've created a disproportionate number of men who are more pussycats than lions. Perhaps the real Decline Of Men has only just begun.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, they'll throw off their Prada, ditch the pedicures, stop crying and get in touch with their masculine side again. We can only hope.
Comment: Most of the men in society have now turned into sissies. They get pushed around by women. They are not real men. Ladies still long for the real thing. They hate pussies.
2008
Media's concept of Real Men
This is what media's concept of what real men should be like:
British newspaper - The Daily Mail:
How Feminism "Destroyed Real Men"
Women thought the last victory of equality was to make men more 'sensitive'. The bitter irony, says this male writer in a piece that will infuriate the opposite sex (including his wife Liz Jones), is women don't like wimps after all...
At a dinner party recently, I encountered the depressingly familiar sight of a dynamic thirty- something woman accompanied by a nerdy male sidekick that she'd browbeaten into proposing to her.
The mismatch in power was obvious. She was successful, ambitious and confident; he was a diffident, overweight, shrinking violet who measured every word he spoke in case he said anything remotely contentious that might offend her.
On her wedding finger was the most enormous, glittering engagement ring. A mutual friend later told me she'd initially been presented with a less garish but more exquisite diamond but had told her fiance to return it to the shop and get her something bigger.
That huge diamond was his declaration of surrender in the sex war. But I didn't feel sorry for the stupid sap; he should have been man enough to tell her to get lost and find some other dummy.
Instead, he'd been sucker-punched into a lifetime of nagging and neglect, and looking at his bossy wife-to-be parading her huge rock, I felt a shiver of pre-emptive schadenfreude.
Her smug smile might have given the impression that her glossy-magazine-inspired life was all going to plan, but I could see the tragedy to come.
One day she'll realise how dull and unfulfilling it is to have a man who doesn't answer back, who offers no challenge or danger - but by then she'll be over the hill and stuck with him for fear of being left on the shelf. Sadly, this is the state of many marriages today.
Back in the Nineties, emboldened by the successes of feminism, women sought to slay the dragon of patriarchy by turning men into ridiculous cissies who would cry with them through chick-flicks and then cook up a decent lasagne.
Suddenly, women wanted to drive home their newfound equality by moulding men to be more like them.
This velvet revolution was reflected in a series of broader cultural changes. After decades of uncompromising movie heroes like Marlon Brando and Clint Eastwood, we were asked to fall for stuttering, floppy-haired fops like Hugh Grant; touchy-feely and hopelessly embarrassed around women.
No doubt at the time, millions of misguided single women thought that having a man who could feel their pain and emote for Britain was a Good Thing.
Now, over a decade later, women are waking up to the fact that these men are drippy, sexless bores. The feminisation of men hasn't produced the well-rounded uber-males women were hoping for.
Instead, women are now lumped with flabby invertebrates, little more than doormats, whom they secretly despise but are too proud to admit it.
Rather than partnership, professional women tend to seek dominance in a relationship. They map their lives out early on and pursue their dream of 'having it all' with cold-blooded ruthlessness.
Young women have a crystal-clear agenda: they want the career, the wardrobe, the smartly furnished house, the 4x4 and the cute kids they'll ferry in it to expensive schools. No man is going to get in their way; and the men they choose for themselves are pliant and feeble enough to facilitate that programme.
Concentrating so much energy on work and family matters requires these women to pick a man who is predictable and secure, who won't upset the apple cart by pursuing dreams and instincts of his own.
These are cardboard cut-out men who gush with empathy whenever their wives and girlfriends need to dump their professional stresses and female angst on them: weak and soulless men who haven't the guts to make a mark themselves, who take the passenger seat in their women's juggernaut journey to post-feminist Nirvana.
But having ticked off the various items on their life checklist, women are left with a nagging sense of dissatisfaction. Where was the drama? Where was the passion? Where was the stimulation and growth?
It was all forsaken for an anodyne, materialistic shopping spree that is a Good Thing. ultimately a poor substitute for a real life. These women consider themselves to be alpha-females, but they are nothing but a pathetic sham.
A true Amazon couldn't stand the company of a supplicant male, let alone marry one. Real alpha-women are the ones who can more than hold their own with an alpha-man.
Deep down, women love men who stand up to them, who won't be pushed around. They love men who will look them in the eye and tell them to shut up when their hormonal bickering has become too much.
They love men who will draw a line in the sand and walk out on them when they've had enough. They love men who know their own minds and are man enough to stick to their guns.
I'm always telling my wife, the writer Liz Jones, to shut up. She gets into a prissy huff about it, but I know she respects me for not indulging her neuroticism. Long ago, I realised it is unhealthy for a man to embroil himself in arguments with women.
While men want an argument to make sense and have a rational conclusion, women solely want the argument itself: it's a pressure valve for their emotions, and once they get started there is no stopping them.
I have a very low boredom threshold; I can't bear having protracted discussions about where my wife and I 'are going'. Nor can I bear to listen to the gossipy, highly detailed 'He said, she said' monologues that women drift into when telling you about their day.
I deal with these elements of the female personality with impassive indifference. People might call me a sexist pig, but I am the opposite. I love women, and I love my wife because she is brilliant and incredibly strong.
I am a true feminist, because I only want to be with a powerful and capable woman. No sexist could cope with having a wife as intelligent and independent as mine.
Our relationship would never have worked had I been an effete New Man, desperately wanting to sympathise with the female condition.
My wife would have grown to loathe me for my fawning cowardice. She is a warrior and she needs to be with someone who is a match for her. Knowing the limits of what I will deal with in a relationship, I maintain my self-respect and, accordingly, gain hers.
Men are now generally terrified of women. They hold their tongues for fear of being misinterpreted as sexist; they constantly attempt to secondguess their partner in order to avoid giving offence.
They preen themselves with groaning shelves full of beauty products so they won't incur derision and scorn. They suppress their masculinity and present themselves as cuddly Mr Nice Guys, and won't project self- confidence in case it's regarded as unreconstructed machismo.
This backfiring feminist conspiracy has, of course, developed hand in hand with the march of raging political correctness in Britain. The two have combined like some potent chemical reaction to explode in the faces of a generation of women who thought that a 'moulded' man would make for a desirable one.
In recent years, men have been trained like circus seals to be inoffensive to women, and no longer know how to entice them and turn them on.
But women secretly long for a man with swagger, who is cocky and selfassured and has the cheek to stand up them and make fun of their feminine foibles.
They long for the rakish charm of a man who knows there's a whole ocean of fish out there, who isn't afraid of being himself in case he is rejected.
The truth is, a real man doesn't care what any woman thinks of him. He doesn't care what anyone thinks of him: he answers solely to his spirit.
Real men don't pretend or even try to understand women. They simply love them for being the mysterious, capricious creatures that they are. And they don't take them too seriously, either. They know the vicissitudes of the female mind, its constant insecurities and the fluctuations in mood.
Rather than pander to them, they simply watch them drift by like so many clouds on the horizon. They don't get entangled in a woman's feelings and listen to her prattling on and on until she's talked herself out. Such strong and stoic men are exactly what women need to anchor themselves amid the chaos of their emotions.
Sometimes my wife bemoans my detachment and laissez-faire attitude to our marriage and wishes I were more wrapped up in her. I tell her she would soon get bored of it, because men who put women on a pedestal can't make love to them in the way that women want.
A man who is too in awe of his woman isn't going to tear her blouse open and ravish her on the couch; he isn't going to pull her hair and whisper profanities in her ear. Whenever my marriage is at a crisis point, and my wife's ego and mine are jostling for a position of supremacy, we inevitably have strenuous, battling sex.
My wife is older and more successful than I am, but the bedroom has always been the arena in which I have brought her down to earth.
The female orgasm is the natural mechanism by which men assert dominion over women: a man who appreciates this can negotiate whatever difficulties arise in his relationships with them.
Last Christmas, my wife threw me out after discovering I'd been cheating on her. On the night we got back together, I made strong, passionate love to her. Unfaithful as I'd been, I was not going to let her have me over a barrel for the rest of our marriage. I needed to keep a sense of self and not allow her to mire me in guilt and a desperate quest of forgiveness.
I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: 'Who's the boss?'
The question threw her. Initially she wouldn't give me a reply, but I enticed it from her. 'You are,' she finally gasped. 'You are!' I am a very difficult man to be with. I know I have caused my wife great pain and anxiety. But she is an adult, and ultimately it is wholly her choice whether she wants to be with me or not - I cannot be anyone other than myself.
I don't believe in working on relationships and making artificial efforts to give them substance. I believe in people being themselves and following their hearts towards whatever destiny lies before them.
When women choose to be with New Men, they are choosing a life that will be only half-lived. I think a lot of them are finally waking up to that fact. Relationships between independent and assertive people will always be fraught with tensions, but they have enormous creative energy.
Despite the many problems my wife and I have endured, we have both come a long way since we first met six years ago.
We have challenged one another to grow - professionally, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. This would never have happened had she flaked out and gone for a softer option in her choice of partner.
Bring back the real men, girls. You might just remember why you loved them in the first place.
Part 2:
The return of real men: Ladies, get ready to meet Mr Retrosexual
Picture: Gone is the metrosexual man, now women have been demanding the return of the real men, like Indiana Jones
Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn't spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturising Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men.
Now a new book, The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man, has been published. David Thomas tip-toes through the unashamedly macho details. . .
Who is he?
Remember, you have a number of qualities, almost all deriving from your testosterone, which women can't help but admire. For example:
1. Your mind is uncluttered. Consider the female brain, filled as it is with multiple anxieties about its owner's hair, figure, health, diet, clothes, shoes, emotions, digestive transit, sex life, competitive female friendships, multi-tasking duties as a worker/lover/ wife/mother/whatever.
Instead, your mind is focused on the important things in life: sex, beer, football. Women secretly envy a mind like that.
2. You can make decisions on your own. You don't need to talk it over for hours with all your friends, or consult a horoscope, or worry about feng shui.
3. You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.
4. You do not clutter up the bathroom. No woman wants a man who owns more beauty products than she does. A man who showers, shaves, then gets out of the way is ideal.
How to treat a lady
1. When on a date, you pay - even if she offers. Don't stand for any nonsense about going Dutch. And pay in cash - retrosexuals don't use credit cards.
2. You open doors for women, and you stand for pregnant women on a bus, train or Tube. You do this because you are a man, and you're proud of it.
3. You do not cook anything more sophisticated than Pot Noodles or baked beans. Cooking is her job. But when you have a Sunday roast - and you do, obviously - you carve with manly precision and flair.
4. Women like to talk, bless them. So don't try to stop her getting her feelings off her chest, however daft they might be. There's no need to actually listen, however. Nor does she expect, or even want you to express an opinion of your own. A nod of the head, roughly every 90 seconds, combined with a concerned frown, or a cheery laugh, where appropriate, is perfectly sufficient.
5. Of course, you want to have sex. Afterwards, however, it is important to avoid saying 'I love you' or 'I'm sorry, that's never happened before'.
6. She may be interested in commitment. You are not. It is vitally important that you never even acknowledge the possibility that you are in a relationship. The moment she uses a sentence that includes words such as 'wedding', 'children', or 'meet my parents', make your excuses and leave.
7. No woman ever comes between you and live TV football. Only a very special woman will come between you and the edited highlights on Match Of The Day.
8. There is no woman on Earth for whom you will go to see Sex And The City - The Movie.
Travel
A man without a car is like a dog without a collar. Since retrosexual men don't believe in global warming (apart from the notion that hotter weather = women wearing fewer clothes), they steer a fine line between cars that are weedy, girly excuses for a motor and flashy Italian sports cars that suggest their manhood might need a little motorised assistance.
The all-time classic retrosexual cars were all made by Ford in the golden era of retrosexuality, between 1970 and 1985.
They were: THE FORD CORTINA, as driven by the God of Retrosexuals, DCI Gene Hunt in Life On Mars (he exchanged it for an Audi Quattro in Ashes To Ashes). THE FORD CAPRI, as driven by Bodie and Doyle, in another retrosexual TV classic, The Professionals. THE FORD GRANADA, as driven by Arfur Daley in Minder. THE FORD SIERRA COSWORTH, as driven by boy-racers in the Home Counties during the mid-1980s.
Rules of the road
1. Never ask for directions, because you are never, ever lost. You're just taking a little longer than expected to get there.
2. Nor do you require sat-nav.
3. The correct speed for a retrosexual is 5 per cent above the stated limit - at all times.
4. The correct distance between you and the car in front is 3ft.
5. The correct answer to the question 'Should I let another driver cut in ahead of me at a junction?' is: 'Yes, if she's goodlooking.'
6. The only two occasions when it's acceptable to use a horn are: (i) to alert the driver in front when the traffic lights have turned green; (ii) to make a potentially attractive woman turn her face in your direction.
7. Never bother signalling left. Other motorists will always find out soon enough.
His mates
You have mates - but never Best Friends. Famous buddies such as Starsky and Hutch, Butch and Sundance, Batman and Robin, and even Ant and Dec are highly suspicious relationships.
No matter how tough those men may be, nor how straight, the Retrosexual can't help thinking they're all riding a little too close to Brokeback Mountain.
When dealing with his friends, the Retrosexual sticks to basic, common-sense guidelines:
• NEVER be alone with another man for any longer than is strictly necessary.
• AVOID learning the other man's name for as long as possible and then never, ever use it (a humorous nickname, preferably abusive, may be permitted after many years of acquaintance, or when playing in the same sports team).
• NO ARRANGEMENTS for meeting again are permitted beyond a general 'See you around'.
• HUGS, tears and kisses are acceptable only if both parties are hopelessly drunk, and provided apologies for any indiscretions are exchanged as soon as they have sobered up.
Icons
SIR WALTER RALEIGH: He introduced the potato and tobacco into Britain, thereby giving us chips and fags.
ADMIRAL HORATIO NELSON: Defeated the French and the Spanish, while keeping his wife and Lady Hamilton happy.
BOBBY MOORE: England's World Cup-winning captain was a supreme footballer, an absolute gentleman and could drink you under the table.
STEVEMcQUEEN: Arguably the coolest star of them all, and didn't need any tame stunt-man to jump that bike over the barbedwire fence.
BRIAN CLOUGH: Ol' Big'ead wouldn't say he was the best manager in the business. But he was in the top one.
DI JACK REGAN: Forget Morse, this is Thaw at his best; nicking villains, administering kickings and snarling 'Get your trousers on, you're nicked!' in The Sweeney.
ROD STEWART: Blondes as far as the eye can see, never knowingly short of a drink, has his own football pitch and terrible taste in clothes. That's a Retrosexual!
RAY WINSTONE: He's the daddy.
JEREMY CLARKSON: He drives cars fast, and drives Greens mad. His opinions are sound, his voice is loud and his fashion sense is non-existent. His only flaw is being called 'Jeremy'.
DCI GENE HUNT: A Regan for the modern age, singlehandedly responsible for reminding women what they're missing. All his best quotes are winners, such as: 'Don't move. You're surrounded by armed bastards!' Verily, the lord of all Retrosexual Men everywhere.
Home comforts
A Retrosexual does not actually have a home, as such - not unless he has woken up one day to find that he has somehow got married. Of course, he has to have somewhere to live, but he demonstrates his inherent manliness by his absolute indifference to his physical surroundings.
So, while he may be forced to acquire chairs, tables, a bed and something to lie on while watching the telly, he pays no attention at all to what they look like.
He may, on the other hand, devote considerable care to choosing his 42in widescreen plasma TV, his DVD recorder and his surround-sound homecinema system.
No Retrosexual ever watches any propertybased TV show. His notion of a Grand Design is a 6ft high pyramid of beer cans.
He does, however, have a number of possible decorative styles at his fingertips. These include:
• MINIMALISM: Nothing in the place but a TV, a bed, a fridge and a pile of clothes on the floor.
• MODERNISM: Same as minimalism, only with better TV, more gadgets (serious hi-fi, PC, video games, etc), and a large selection of power-tools.
• SHABBY CHIC: In which random styles of furniture, all bought second-hand, are combined to give an eclectic, cluttered charm - or a pigsty, in other words.
The key is to tread a fine line between having such an untidy place that any women would run away, and being so clean and tidy that she questions your virility.
If in doubt, do nothing. Bare walls, lightbulbs and an absence of girly soft furnishings (eg. cushions, tablecloths and even curtains) are safe options. And never, ever light any candles.
Comment: All that above just named a bunch of sissies and presented them as real men. Women are not that easily fooled by newspapers articles. They know exactly what a real man is.
2008
British newspaper - The Daily Mail:
How Feminism "Destroyed Real Men"
Women thought the last victory of equality was to make men more 'sensitive'. The bitter irony, says this male writer in a piece that will infuriate the opposite sex (including his wife Liz Jones), is women don't like wimps after all...
At a dinner party recently, I encountered the depressingly familiar sight of a dynamic thirty- something woman accompanied by a nerdy male sidekick that she'd browbeaten into proposing to her.
The mismatch in power was obvious. She was successful, ambitious and confident; he was a diffident, overweight, shrinking violet who measured every word he spoke in case he said anything remotely contentious that might offend her.
On her wedding finger was the most enormous, glittering engagement ring. A mutual friend later told me she'd initially been presented with a less garish but more exquisite diamond but had told her fiance to return it to the shop and get her something bigger.
That huge diamond was his declaration of surrender in the sex war. But I didn't feel sorry for the stupid sap; he should have been man enough to tell her to get lost and find some other dummy.
Instead, he'd been sucker-punched into a lifetime of nagging and neglect, and looking at his bossy wife-to-be parading her huge rock, I felt a shiver of pre-emptive schadenfreude.
Her smug smile might have given the impression that her glossy-magazine-inspired life was all going to plan, but I could see the tragedy to come.
One day she'll realise how dull and unfulfilling it is to have a man who doesn't answer back, who offers no challenge or danger - but by then she'll be over the hill and stuck with him for fear of being left on the shelf. Sadly, this is the state of many marriages today.
Back in the Nineties, emboldened by the successes of feminism, women sought to slay the dragon of patriarchy by turning men into ridiculous cissies who would cry with them through chick-flicks and then cook up a decent lasagne.
Suddenly, women wanted to drive home their newfound equality by moulding men to be more like them.
This velvet revolution was reflected in a series of broader cultural changes. After decades of uncompromising movie heroes like Marlon Brando and Clint Eastwood, we were asked to fall for stuttering, floppy-haired fops like Hugh Grant; touchy-feely and hopelessly embarrassed around women.
No doubt at the time, millions of misguided single women thought that having a man who could feel their pain and emote for Britain was a Good Thing.
Now, over a decade later, women are waking up to the fact that these men are drippy, sexless bores. The feminisation of men hasn't produced the well-rounded uber-males women were hoping for.
Instead, women are now lumped with flabby invertebrates, little more than doormats, whom they secretly despise but are too proud to admit it.
Rather than partnership, professional women tend to seek dominance in a relationship. They map their lives out early on and pursue their dream of 'having it all' with cold-blooded ruthlessness.
Young women have a crystal-clear agenda: they want the career, the wardrobe, the smartly furnished house, the 4x4 and the cute kids they'll ferry in it to expensive schools. No man is going to get in their way; and the men they choose for themselves are pliant and feeble enough to facilitate that programme.
Concentrating so much energy on work and family matters requires these women to pick a man who is predictable and secure, who won't upset the apple cart by pursuing dreams and instincts of his own.
These are cardboard cut-out men who gush with empathy whenever their wives and girlfriends need to dump their professional stresses and female angst on them: weak and soulless men who haven't the guts to make a mark themselves, who take the passenger seat in their women's juggernaut journey to post-feminist Nirvana.
But having ticked off the various items on their life checklist, women are left with a nagging sense of dissatisfaction. Where was the drama? Where was the passion? Where was the stimulation and growth?
It was all forsaken for an anodyne, materialistic shopping spree that is a Good Thing. ultimately a poor substitute for a real life. These women consider themselves to be alpha-females, but they are nothing but a pathetic sham.
A true Amazon couldn't stand the company of a supplicant male, let alone marry one. Real alpha-women are the ones who can more than hold their own with an alpha-man.
Deep down, women love men who stand up to them, who won't be pushed around. They love men who will look them in the eye and tell them to shut up when their hormonal bickering has become too much.
They love men who will draw a line in the sand and walk out on them when they've had enough. They love men who know their own minds and are man enough to stick to their guns.
I'm always telling my wife, the writer Liz Jones, to shut up. She gets into a prissy huff about it, but I know she respects me for not indulging her neuroticism. Long ago, I realised it is unhealthy for a man to embroil himself in arguments with women.
While men want an argument to make sense and have a rational conclusion, women solely want the argument itself: it's a pressure valve for their emotions, and once they get started there is no stopping them.
I have a very low boredom threshold; I can't bear having protracted discussions about where my wife and I 'are going'. Nor can I bear to listen to the gossipy, highly detailed 'He said, she said' monologues that women drift into when telling you about their day.
I deal with these elements of the female personality with impassive indifference. People might call me a sexist pig, but I am the opposite. I love women, and I love my wife because she is brilliant and incredibly strong.
I am a true feminist, because I only want to be with a powerful and capable woman. No sexist could cope with having a wife as intelligent and independent as mine.
Our relationship would never have worked had I been an effete New Man, desperately wanting to sympathise with the female condition.
My wife would have grown to loathe me for my fawning cowardice. She is a warrior and she needs to be with someone who is a match for her. Knowing the limits of what I will deal with in a relationship, I maintain my self-respect and, accordingly, gain hers.
Men are now generally terrified of women. They hold their tongues for fear of being misinterpreted as sexist; they constantly attempt to secondguess their partner in order to avoid giving offence.
They preen themselves with groaning shelves full of beauty products so they won't incur derision and scorn. They suppress their masculinity and present themselves as cuddly Mr Nice Guys, and won't project self- confidence in case it's regarded as unreconstructed machismo.
This backfiring feminist conspiracy has, of course, developed hand in hand with the march of raging political correctness in Britain. The two have combined like some potent chemical reaction to explode in the faces of a generation of women who thought that a 'moulded' man would make for a desirable one.
In recent years, men have been trained like circus seals to be inoffensive to women, and no longer know how to entice them and turn them on.
But women secretly long for a man with swagger, who is cocky and selfassured and has the cheek to stand up them and make fun of their feminine foibles.
They long for the rakish charm of a man who knows there's a whole ocean of fish out there, who isn't afraid of being himself in case he is rejected.
The truth is, a real man doesn't care what any woman thinks of him. He doesn't care what anyone thinks of him: he answers solely to his spirit.
Real men don't pretend or even try to understand women. They simply love them for being the mysterious, capricious creatures that they are. And they don't take them too seriously, either. They know the vicissitudes of the female mind, its constant insecurities and the fluctuations in mood.
Rather than pander to them, they simply watch them drift by like so many clouds on the horizon. They don't get entangled in a woman's feelings and listen to her prattling on and on until she's talked herself out. Such strong and stoic men are exactly what women need to anchor themselves amid the chaos of their emotions.
Sometimes my wife bemoans my detachment and laissez-faire attitude to our marriage and wishes I were more wrapped up in her. I tell her she would soon get bored of it, because men who put women on a pedestal can't make love to them in the way that women want.
A man who is too in awe of his woman isn't going to tear her blouse open and ravish her on the couch; he isn't going to pull her hair and whisper profanities in her ear. Whenever my marriage is at a crisis point, and my wife's ego and mine are jostling for a position of supremacy, we inevitably have strenuous, battling sex.
My wife is older and more successful than I am, but the bedroom has always been the arena in which I have brought her down to earth.
The female orgasm is the natural mechanism by which men assert dominion over women: a man who appreciates this can negotiate whatever difficulties arise in his relationships with them.
Last Christmas, my wife threw me out after discovering I'd been cheating on her. On the night we got back together, I made strong, passionate love to her. Unfaithful as I'd been, I was not going to let her have me over a barrel for the rest of our marriage. I needed to keep a sense of self and not allow her to mire me in guilt and a desperate quest of forgiveness.
I needed to let her know what she would be missing if we broke up for ever. I gave her a manful bravura performance that night, and at the height of her passion, I asked her: 'Who's the boss?'
The question threw her. Initially she wouldn't give me a reply, but I enticed it from her. 'You are,' she finally gasped. 'You are!' I am a very difficult man to be with. I know I have caused my wife great pain and anxiety. But she is an adult, and ultimately it is wholly her choice whether she wants to be with me or not - I cannot be anyone other than myself.
I don't believe in working on relationships and making artificial efforts to give them substance. I believe in people being themselves and following their hearts towards whatever destiny lies before them.
When women choose to be with New Men, they are choosing a life that will be only half-lived. I think a lot of them are finally waking up to that fact. Relationships between independent and assertive people will always be fraught with tensions, but they have enormous creative energy.
Despite the many problems my wife and I have endured, we have both come a long way since we first met six years ago.
We have challenged one another to grow - professionally, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. This would never have happened had she flaked out and gone for a softer option in her choice of partner.
Bring back the real men, girls. You might just remember why you loved them in the first place.
Part 2:
The return of real men: Ladies, get ready to meet Mr Retrosexual
Picture: Gone is the metrosexual man, now women have been demanding the return of the real men, like Indiana Jones
Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn't spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturising Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men.
Now a new book, The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man, has been published. David Thomas tip-toes through the unashamedly macho details. . .
Who is he?
Remember, you have a number of qualities, almost all deriving from your testosterone, which women can't help but admire. For example:
1. Your mind is uncluttered. Consider the female brain, filled as it is with multiple anxieties about its owner's hair, figure, health, diet, clothes, shoes, emotions, digestive transit, sex life, competitive female friendships, multi-tasking duties as a worker/lover/ wife/mother/whatever.
Instead, your mind is focused on the important things in life: sex, beer, football. Women secretly envy a mind like that.
2. You can make decisions on your own. You don't need to talk it over for hours with all your friends, or consult a horoscope, or worry about feng shui.
3. You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.
4. You do not clutter up the bathroom. No woman wants a man who owns more beauty products than she does. A man who showers, shaves, then gets out of the way is ideal.
How to treat a lady
1. When on a date, you pay - even if she offers. Don't stand for any nonsense about going Dutch. And pay in cash - retrosexuals don't use credit cards.
2. You open doors for women, and you stand for pregnant women on a bus, train or Tube. You do this because you are a man, and you're proud of it.
3. You do not cook anything more sophisticated than Pot Noodles or baked beans. Cooking is her job. But when you have a Sunday roast - and you do, obviously - you carve with manly precision and flair.
4. Women like to talk, bless them. So don't try to stop her getting her feelings off her chest, however daft they might be. There's no need to actually listen, however. Nor does she expect, or even want you to express an opinion of your own. A nod of the head, roughly every 90 seconds, combined with a concerned frown, or a cheery laugh, where appropriate, is perfectly sufficient.
5. Of course, you want to have sex. Afterwards, however, it is important to avoid saying 'I love you' or 'I'm sorry, that's never happened before'.
6. She may be interested in commitment. You are not. It is vitally important that you never even acknowledge the possibility that you are in a relationship. The moment she uses a sentence that includes words such as 'wedding', 'children', or 'meet my parents', make your excuses and leave.
7. No woman ever comes between you and live TV football. Only a very special woman will come between you and the edited highlights on Match Of The Day.
8. There is no woman on Earth for whom you will go to see Sex And The City - The Movie.
Travel
A man without a car is like a dog without a collar. Since retrosexual men don't believe in global warming (apart from the notion that hotter weather = women wearing fewer clothes), they steer a fine line between cars that are weedy, girly excuses for a motor and flashy Italian sports cars that suggest their manhood might need a little motorised assistance.
The all-time classic retrosexual cars were all made by Ford in the golden era of retrosexuality, between 1970 and 1985.
They were: THE FORD CORTINA, as driven by the God of Retrosexuals, DCI Gene Hunt in Life On Mars (he exchanged it for an Audi Quattro in Ashes To Ashes). THE FORD CAPRI, as driven by Bodie and Doyle, in another retrosexual TV classic, The Professionals. THE FORD GRANADA, as driven by Arfur Daley in Minder. THE FORD SIERRA COSWORTH, as driven by boy-racers in the Home Counties during the mid-1980s.
Rules of the road
1. Never ask for directions, because you are never, ever lost. You're just taking a little longer than expected to get there.
2. Nor do you require sat-nav.
3. The correct speed for a retrosexual is 5 per cent above the stated limit - at all times.
4. The correct distance between you and the car in front is 3ft.
5. The correct answer to the question 'Should I let another driver cut in ahead of me at a junction?' is: 'Yes, if she's goodlooking.'
6. The only two occasions when it's acceptable to use a horn are: (i) to alert the driver in front when the traffic lights have turned green; (ii) to make a potentially attractive woman turn her face in your direction.
7. Never bother signalling left. Other motorists will always find out soon enough.
His mates
You have mates - but never Best Friends. Famous buddies such as Starsky and Hutch, Butch and Sundance, Batman and Robin, and even Ant and Dec are highly suspicious relationships.
No matter how tough those men may be, nor how straight, the Retrosexual can't help thinking they're all riding a little too close to Brokeback Mountain.
When dealing with his friends, the Retrosexual sticks to basic, common-sense guidelines:
• NEVER be alone with another man for any longer than is strictly necessary.
• AVOID learning the other man's name for as long as possible and then never, ever use it (a humorous nickname, preferably abusive, may be permitted after many years of acquaintance, or when playing in the same sports team).
• NO ARRANGEMENTS for meeting again are permitted beyond a general 'See you around'.
• HUGS, tears and kisses are acceptable only if both parties are hopelessly drunk, and provided apologies for any indiscretions are exchanged as soon as they have sobered up.
Icons
SIR WALTER RALEIGH: He introduced the potato and tobacco into Britain, thereby giving us chips and fags.
ADMIRAL HORATIO NELSON: Defeated the French and the Spanish, while keeping his wife and Lady Hamilton happy.
BOBBY MOORE: England's World Cup-winning captain was a supreme footballer, an absolute gentleman and could drink you under the table.
STEVEMcQUEEN: Arguably the coolest star of them all, and didn't need any tame stunt-man to jump that bike over the barbedwire fence.
BRIAN CLOUGH: Ol' Big'ead wouldn't say he was the best manager in the business. But he was in the top one.
DI JACK REGAN: Forget Morse, this is Thaw at his best; nicking villains, administering kickings and snarling 'Get your trousers on, you're nicked!' in The Sweeney.
ROD STEWART: Blondes as far as the eye can see, never knowingly short of a drink, has his own football pitch and terrible taste in clothes. That's a Retrosexual!
RAY WINSTONE: He's the daddy.
JEREMY CLARKSON: He drives cars fast, and drives Greens mad. His opinions are sound, his voice is loud and his fashion sense is non-existent. His only flaw is being called 'Jeremy'.
DCI GENE HUNT: A Regan for the modern age, singlehandedly responsible for reminding women what they're missing. All his best quotes are winners, such as: 'Don't move. You're surrounded by armed bastards!' Verily, the lord of all Retrosexual Men everywhere.
Home comforts
A Retrosexual does not actually have a home, as such - not unless he has woken up one day to find that he has somehow got married. Of course, he has to have somewhere to live, but he demonstrates his inherent manliness by his absolute indifference to his physical surroundings.
So, while he may be forced to acquire chairs, tables, a bed and something to lie on while watching the telly, he pays no attention at all to what they look like.
He may, on the other hand, devote considerable care to choosing his 42in widescreen plasma TV, his DVD recorder and his surround-sound homecinema system.
No Retrosexual ever watches any propertybased TV show. His notion of a Grand Design is a 6ft high pyramid of beer cans.
He does, however, have a number of possible decorative styles at his fingertips. These include:
• MINIMALISM: Nothing in the place but a TV, a bed, a fridge and a pile of clothes on the floor.
• MODERNISM: Same as minimalism, only with better TV, more gadgets (serious hi-fi, PC, video games, etc), and a large selection of power-tools.
• SHABBY CHIC: In which random styles of furniture, all bought second-hand, are combined to give an eclectic, cluttered charm - or a pigsty, in other words.
The key is to tread a fine line between having such an untidy place that any women would run away, and being so clean and tidy that she questions your virility.
If in doubt, do nothing. Bare walls, lightbulbs and an absence of girly soft furnishings (eg. cushions, tablecloths and even curtains) are safe options. And never, ever light any candles.
Comment: All that above just named a bunch of sissies and presented them as real men. Women are not that easily fooled by newspapers articles. They know exactly what a real man is.
2008
Media on Sissies
Soceity as a whole and women in particular are desperate for real men. They have had enough of sissies. They want the real stuff.
British newspaper - The Independent:
The welcome return of some "real men"
People are becoming bored of the gentle metrosexual with his recipes and design flair
The life of everyday public figures is full of surprises, but it was nonetheless surprising to hear about Jeremy Paxman's interest in male circumcision. He was to be in the hot seat at Broadcasting House after the Woman's Hour unit had come up with the wild and zany idea of putting on a Man's Hour programme over the holiday period. Asked what male-centric issues he would like to discuss, Paxo opted for the issue of foreskin abuse.
The life of everyday public figures is full of surprises, but it was nonetheless surprising to hear about Jeremy Paxman's interest in male circumcision. He was to be in the hot seat at Broadcasting House after the Woman's Hour unit had come up with the wild and zany idea of putting on a Man's Hour programme over the holiday period. Asked what male-centric issues he would like to discuss, Paxo opted for the issue of foreskin abuse.
It proved to be a problem. Although Woman's Hour has reported on female circumcision in the past, this male version was thought to be inappropriate for broadcasting at a time when children might be tuning in. Paxman held his ground and was told that his services were no longer required. In a diary for that house magazine for the huffy middle-aged male, The Spectator, he complained: "While in the usual way, protesting their liberal credentials, they were worried about making it 'relevant and interesting' to the audience."
His replacement, Jon Snow, who has admitted to being what Arnold Schwarzenegger called a "girlie man", chaired a programme of suitably inoffensive topics: the caring side of Sven-Goran Eriksson, how to cook a partridge, the question of whether there should be a ministry for men, and so on.
There are, presumably, a number of men who believe the snip deserves exploration beyond the giggling "roundheads and cavaliers" discussion of small boys. Philip Roth delivered a well-known riff on the subject in his novel The Counterlife. Circumcision, he wrote, "gives the lie to the womb-dream of life in the beautiful state of innocent prehistory ... The heavy hand of human values falls upon you right at the start, marking your genitals as its own."
There are those, apparently, who have been traumatised by this heavy hand. Support groups have been set up under such names as Norm, the National Organisation Restoring Men, or Ouch, Outlaw Unnecessary Circumcision in Hospital, and have encouraged men to embark on self-help procedures involving weights, cones and tapes.
These are tricky, sensitive issues. It may well be that the bigwigs of Woman's Hour were right to spare Radio 4 listeners the upsetting image of Paxman moving curiously among the danglers, tapers, cone-wielders and self-restorers. But the row surrounding the decision reflects more than questions of squeamishness and taste. When the women deciding the content and character of Man's Hour opted for Jon Snow as presenter, and when subsequently Paxman went public with the story, they were pointing up a subtle sea-change in the area of masculinity.
Until recently, contemporary males were presented through the media as belonging in one of two categories. They tended to be either traditionalists, backward-looking types who clung to stereotypical views on matters of gender and much else, or they were New Lads, a group which confusingly contained both the blokeishness represented in a programme like They Think It's All Over and the sensitivity of a Nick Hornby novel.
The media world rather approves of gentle, caring men and soon the metrosexual - to quote Jon Snow, "a man in touch with his feminine side, who is not gay" - began to represent the acceptable face of masculinity. There was a move towards a genderless middle ground; the more laddish of TV programmes were deemed out of step with the spirit of the age and were quietly phased out. The presenters most in demand were either overtly gay or were nice, domesticated types one could imagine rustling up a paella in the kitchen while the lady wife took the weight off her feet - Alan Titchmarsh, Gary Lineker, Huw Edwards, Simon Schama.
Meanwhile, in the outside world, real men were fighting back. Male misbehaviour of the type that had once been associated with soap stars and footballers began to flare up in the most unlikely places. At The Spectator, Bonking Boris, Randy Rod and Sneaky Simon were at it, while Dodgy Dave was getting busy with the magazine's publisher. At the Football Association, two more respectable figures were discovered to have been straying into the penalty area at the slightest excuse.
The fact that these errant middle-aged men have not, on the whole, been mocked, that a certain amount of sympathy - perhaps even jealousy - has been directed towards them, suggests that a weariness with the exemplary New Lad has set in. People are becoming bored of the gentle metrosexual with his recipes, design flair, and keen sense of responsibility towards his family and kids and society at large.
Real men, as bloody-minded and truculent as ever, have been making a comeback. Screen bullies and tough guys, such as Simon Cowell, Kelvin MacKenzie, David Starkey, Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson are in vogue. Even the bad guys - Donald Rumsfeld, Russell Crowe, Lord Black, Roy Keane - have begun to acquire a manly allure.
I suppose one should disapprove of this process and support the sensible decision to keep Paxo away from the foreskin activists of Ouch and Norm, but now and then "relevant and interesting" programmes presented by a respectable metrosexual can seem rather too straight and worthy for these gamey times.
Comment: As can be seen from media articles, most people are still too scared to say the right thing. Why can people just not demand real men, and say that girly men are undesirable. Women do not appreciate sissies. They want proper men.
2008
British newspaper - The Independent:
The welcome return of some "real men"
People are becoming bored of the gentle metrosexual with his recipes and design flair
The life of everyday public figures is full of surprises, but it was nonetheless surprising to hear about Jeremy Paxman's interest in male circumcision. He was to be in the hot seat at Broadcasting House after the Woman's Hour unit had come up with the wild and zany idea of putting on a Man's Hour programme over the holiday period. Asked what male-centric issues he would like to discuss, Paxo opted for the issue of foreskin abuse.
The life of everyday public figures is full of surprises, but it was nonetheless surprising to hear about Jeremy Paxman's interest in male circumcision. He was to be in the hot seat at Broadcasting House after the Woman's Hour unit had come up with the wild and zany idea of putting on a Man's Hour programme over the holiday period. Asked what male-centric issues he would like to discuss, Paxo opted for the issue of foreskin abuse.
It proved to be a problem. Although Woman's Hour has reported on female circumcision in the past, this male version was thought to be inappropriate for broadcasting at a time when children might be tuning in. Paxman held his ground and was told that his services were no longer required. In a diary for that house magazine for the huffy middle-aged male, The Spectator, he complained: "While in the usual way, protesting their liberal credentials, they were worried about making it 'relevant and interesting' to the audience."
His replacement, Jon Snow, who has admitted to being what Arnold Schwarzenegger called a "girlie man", chaired a programme of suitably inoffensive topics: the caring side of Sven-Goran Eriksson, how to cook a partridge, the question of whether there should be a ministry for men, and so on.
There are, presumably, a number of men who believe the snip deserves exploration beyond the giggling "roundheads and cavaliers" discussion of small boys. Philip Roth delivered a well-known riff on the subject in his novel The Counterlife. Circumcision, he wrote, "gives the lie to the womb-dream of life in the beautiful state of innocent prehistory ... The heavy hand of human values falls upon you right at the start, marking your genitals as its own."
There are those, apparently, who have been traumatised by this heavy hand. Support groups have been set up under such names as Norm, the National Organisation Restoring Men, or Ouch, Outlaw Unnecessary Circumcision in Hospital, and have encouraged men to embark on self-help procedures involving weights, cones and tapes.
These are tricky, sensitive issues. It may well be that the bigwigs of Woman's Hour were right to spare Radio 4 listeners the upsetting image of Paxman moving curiously among the danglers, tapers, cone-wielders and self-restorers. But the row surrounding the decision reflects more than questions of squeamishness and taste. When the women deciding the content and character of Man's Hour opted for Jon Snow as presenter, and when subsequently Paxman went public with the story, they were pointing up a subtle sea-change in the area of masculinity.
Until recently, contemporary males were presented through the media as belonging in one of two categories. They tended to be either traditionalists, backward-looking types who clung to stereotypical views on matters of gender and much else, or they were New Lads, a group which confusingly contained both the blokeishness represented in a programme like They Think It's All Over and the sensitivity of a Nick Hornby novel.
The media world rather approves of gentle, caring men and soon the metrosexual - to quote Jon Snow, "a man in touch with his feminine side, who is not gay" - began to represent the acceptable face of masculinity. There was a move towards a genderless middle ground; the more laddish of TV programmes were deemed out of step with the spirit of the age and were quietly phased out. The presenters most in demand were either overtly gay or were nice, domesticated types one could imagine rustling up a paella in the kitchen while the lady wife took the weight off her feet - Alan Titchmarsh, Gary Lineker, Huw Edwards, Simon Schama.
Meanwhile, in the outside world, real men were fighting back. Male misbehaviour of the type that had once been associated with soap stars and footballers began to flare up in the most unlikely places. At The Spectator, Bonking Boris, Randy Rod and Sneaky Simon were at it, while Dodgy Dave was getting busy with the magazine's publisher. At the Football Association, two more respectable figures were discovered to have been straying into the penalty area at the slightest excuse.
The fact that these errant middle-aged men have not, on the whole, been mocked, that a certain amount of sympathy - perhaps even jealousy - has been directed towards them, suggests that a weariness with the exemplary New Lad has set in. People are becoming bored of the gentle metrosexual with his recipes, design flair, and keen sense of responsibility towards his family and kids and society at large.
Real men, as bloody-minded and truculent as ever, have been making a comeback. Screen bullies and tough guys, such as Simon Cowell, Kelvin MacKenzie, David Starkey, Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson are in vogue. Even the bad guys - Donald Rumsfeld, Russell Crowe, Lord Black, Roy Keane - have begun to acquire a manly allure.
I suppose one should disapprove of this process and support the sensible decision to keep Paxo away from the foreskin activists of Ouch and Norm, but now and then "relevant and interesting" programmes presented by a respectable metrosexual can seem rather too straight and worthy for these gamey times.
Comment: As can be seen from media articles, most people are still too scared to say the right thing. Why can people just not demand real men, and say that girly men are undesirable. Women do not appreciate sissies. They want proper men.
2008
Girlies 1
All these article trying to wiggle the real issue - Real men.
What Do Women Want In Men?
by Greg Wendland
Dating is confusing. The only thing more confusing than dating is women. What do you mean, what do I mean? I mean it. Whatever a woman tells you, chances are tomorrow she will feel differently about it. So, you are wondering just what is a woman looking for in a man. The truth is that the criteria really are that simple.
Honesty
Seriously, this is the most important criterion. Anyone that has been caught in a relationship where questions were consistently created by a partner's action understands the crippling power of "wondering". Women do not spend time worrying whether a man is interested or not, if they do not think so, they will move on. Do not play games, remember, honesty is the best policy.
Intelligence
Trust me, guys, women really do find this sexy. We are not talking Revenge of the Nerds intelligence. If you are wearing pocket protectors and pushing up your glasses every 3.35 seconds, chances are your intelligence is not going to help. However, if you can hold a decent conversation on a variety of topics, women will find you worth their time. College degrees are not a necessity, if you can debate topics and are well spoken, you will find a woman to be more attentive to you. So, take your hand out of your pants, Al Bundites, and use it to open a book.
Hard working
Lazy men will not get away with faking it. The most important thing is that a man has goals, even if they have not achieved them yet. Just to be seen as working towards those goals show ambition. Placing your job and future in a position of importance will show a woman that you have plans for your future and they will find that appealing. A serious red flag is one where a man cannot hold down a job. You may not be asked to hand in a resume to prospective girlfriends, but believe it guys, women are reviewing your work history.
Sense of Humor
Women love to laugh. When everything is falling apart, the one thing they look for is laughter. Keep this in mind, guys, if there are problems in the relationship your woman will be drawn to anyone who can make them laugh and feel special. If that is not you, be ready for a bumpy ride. Life is not always about laughter. Sometimes you have to be serious to handle serious problems. However, be sure to keep that sense of humor at the fore and available to your woman. She will find you more appealing and more dependable during the rough times.
Reliability
You want to be able to count on your partner, right? Women feel the same way. No matter the situation, women need to know that their man will be there through thick and thin. Are you a quitter? Do you give up easily? Women will see this, they will take note and they will remember. Keep in mind, that work resume they are silently reviewing will tell them a lot more about you than your actions. They need someone that will be there when everything starts going wrong. This does not mean smother your partner. It simply means, be available on a moments notice to comfort and support your woman in her endeavors.
Shared Values
Let's face it, if you don't share the same ideals and values as your partner, how are you ever going to survive in a long standing relationship? Opposites may attract, but they do not always work out in the end. If you do not share the same vision, a woman may question if you are the right man for her.
Strong Women v.s Weak Men
How strong women can find love too
by Gil Bryan
Everyone woman has in her the ability to help her man grow from failure to success. In other words, she was built with the necessary components to take his small vision and expand it to something grand.But just as she has the ability entrusted to her by Almighty God to help her man grow, if not used wisely this same ability can be used to hinder or stunt her man’s growth.
Every woman wants a great man. That is where the problem lies because you may have a great man but you can’t see it. If you look at what he has by the world’s standard or if you compare him to what the religious mind says, then he may not amount to much.
Based on what we are conditioned by television and other media to think about what a real man should be like maybe your man does not measure up. He doesn’t talk right. He may not have good ideas. He doesn’t have a good paying job, or he may not have a job at all.
No matter what his status, it is not your job to speak to and/or about what he is or is not and judge him by the world’s standard. It is your job to look at him and to speak to him as if you’re seeing him the way God saw him when He was creating him.
Whether you see it or not, God created this man to be a king. To rule and dominate in His stead on earth as if God himself was walking the earth… and you his queen by his side.
When you begin to look at your man, no matter what state he is in now, from the eyes of God, then you will see the vast treasure that lies within him. A treasure that is needing and begging to be cultivated and incubated by your words, your wisdom, your beauty and every gift that God has put inside of you.
There is a scripture that reads, “without a vision the people perish.” Even worse than that is to have two or more visions competing within the same household. Wherever there are two or more visions within the same house you have a “di” vision. The prefix “di” means two. And house with two or more separate visions is house divided and house divided cannot stand. Oh woman! Great and mighty that you are… See and know that your vision and his vision are one. And the only true way to savor God’s blessings is to look into his eyes and see the mirror of your soul and know without a doubt that when you help him rise to be all that he can be that you rise too.
Top 13 Things Women Want in a Man
The 13 most important qualities that women look forin a man are:
1. Honesty
2. Intelligence
3. Nice Smile
4. Sense of Humor
5. Manners
6. Sensitivity
7. Sincerity
8. Gainfully employed
9. Has own place
10. Owns a car
11. Affectionate
12. Considerate
13. Thoughtful
Source: AC - Life Style
comment: As you can see, the list does not contains balls. Women may tolerate a man who has other things, but if he is missing balls, then the pussy will not be respected. No woman likes a girlyman.
-
What Do Women Want In Men?
by Greg Wendland
Dating is confusing. The only thing more confusing than dating is women. What do you mean, what do I mean? I mean it. Whatever a woman tells you, chances are tomorrow she will feel differently about it. So, you are wondering just what is a woman looking for in a man. The truth is that the criteria really are that simple.
Honesty
Seriously, this is the most important criterion. Anyone that has been caught in a relationship where questions were consistently created by a partner's action understands the crippling power of "wondering". Women do not spend time worrying whether a man is interested or not, if they do not think so, they will move on. Do not play games, remember, honesty is the best policy.
Intelligence
Trust me, guys, women really do find this sexy. We are not talking Revenge of the Nerds intelligence. If you are wearing pocket protectors and pushing up your glasses every 3.35 seconds, chances are your intelligence is not going to help. However, if you can hold a decent conversation on a variety of topics, women will find you worth their time. College degrees are not a necessity, if you can debate topics and are well spoken, you will find a woman to be more attentive to you. So, take your hand out of your pants, Al Bundites, and use it to open a book.
Hard working
Lazy men will not get away with faking it. The most important thing is that a man has goals, even if they have not achieved them yet. Just to be seen as working towards those goals show ambition. Placing your job and future in a position of importance will show a woman that you have plans for your future and they will find that appealing. A serious red flag is one where a man cannot hold down a job. You may not be asked to hand in a resume to prospective girlfriends, but believe it guys, women are reviewing your work history.
Sense of Humor
Women love to laugh. When everything is falling apart, the one thing they look for is laughter. Keep this in mind, guys, if there are problems in the relationship your woman will be drawn to anyone who can make them laugh and feel special. If that is not you, be ready for a bumpy ride. Life is not always about laughter. Sometimes you have to be serious to handle serious problems. However, be sure to keep that sense of humor at the fore and available to your woman. She will find you more appealing and more dependable during the rough times.
Reliability
You want to be able to count on your partner, right? Women feel the same way. No matter the situation, women need to know that their man will be there through thick and thin. Are you a quitter? Do you give up easily? Women will see this, they will take note and they will remember. Keep in mind, that work resume they are silently reviewing will tell them a lot more about you than your actions. They need someone that will be there when everything starts going wrong. This does not mean smother your partner. It simply means, be available on a moments notice to comfort and support your woman in her endeavors.
Shared Values
Let's face it, if you don't share the same ideals and values as your partner, how are you ever going to survive in a long standing relationship? Opposites may attract, but they do not always work out in the end. If you do not share the same vision, a woman may question if you are the right man for her.
Strong Women v.s Weak Men
How strong women can find love too
by Gil Bryan
Everyone woman has in her the ability to help her man grow from failure to success. In other words, she was built with the necessary components to take his small vision and expand it to something grand.But just as she has the ability entrusted to her by Almighty God to help her man grow, if not used wisely this same ability can be used to hinder or stunt her man’s growth.
Every woman wants a great man. That is where the problem lies because you may have a great man but you can’t see it. If you look at what he has by the world’s standard or if you compare him to what the religious mind says, then he may not amount to much.
Based on what we are conditioned by television and other media to think about what a real man should be like maybe your man does not measure up. He doesn’t talk right. He may not have good ideas. He doesn’t have a good paying job, or he may not have a job at all.
No matter what his status, it is not your job to speak to and/or about what he is or is not and judge him by the world’s standard. It is your job to look at him and to speak to him as if you’re seeing him the way God saw him when He was creating him.
Whether you see it or not, God created this man to be a king. To rule and dominate in His stead on earth as if God himself was walking the earth… and you his queen by his side.
When you begin to look at your man, no matter what state he is in now, from the eyes of God, then you will see the vast treasure that lies within him. A treasure that is needing and begging to be cultivated and incubated by your words, your wisdom, your beauty and every gift that God has put inside of you.
There is a scripture that reads, “without a vision the people perish.” Even worse than that is to have two or more visions competing within the same household. Wherever there are two or more visions within the same house you have a “di” vision. The prefix “di” means two. And house with two or more separate visions is house divided and house divided cannot stand. Oh woman! Great and mighty that you are… See and know that your vision and his vision are one. And the only true way to savor God’s blessings is to look into his eyes and see the mirror of your soul and know without a doubt that when you help him rise to be all that he can be that you rise too.
Top 13 Things Women Want in a Man
The 13 most important qualities that women look forin a man are:
1. Honesty
2. Intelligence
3. Nice Smile
4. Sense of Humor
5. Manners
6. Sensitivity
7. Sincerity
8. Gainfully employed
9. Has own place
10. Owns a car
11. Affectionate
12. Considerate
13. Thoughtful
Source: AC - Life Style
comment: As you can see, the list does not contains balls. Women may tolerate a man who has other things, but if he is missing balls, then the pussy will not be respected. No woman likes a girlyman.
-
Intro
--
The latest news headlines...
12 May 2009
A scientific finding shows that women who are good at knowing their own and others feelings and emotions had the most satisfying sex lives.
emotional use of intelligence gives women more fun in bed as compared with those having lower emotional intelligence level. Academic logic does not lead to better relationship.
Women who are emotionally intelligent have better sex
Women's "emotional" intelligence leads to better relationships.
"Emotional Women Have Better Sex Lives"
I think this interesting scientific study has been twisted as usual. It simply says academic logic in women is no good for sex. Only inner emotional instincts lead to great orgasms. Women who feel raw emotions and use them wisely do get better enjoyment in bed than other "bright ladies".
--
The latest news headlines...
12 May 2009
A scientific finding shows that women who are good at knowing their own and others feelings and emotions had the most satisfying sex lives.
emotional use of intelligence gives women more fun in bed as compared with those having lower emotional intelligence level. Academic logic does not lead to better relationship.
Women who are emotionally intelligent have better sex
Women's "emotional" intelligence leads to better relationships.
"Emotional Women Have Better Sex Lives"
I think this interesting scientific study has been twisted as usual. It simply says academic logic in women is no good for sex. Only inner emotional instincts lead to great orgasms. Women who feel raw emotions and use them wisely do get better enjoyment in bed than other "bright ladies".
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
