Monday
Turn Now
-
LIONS
This website is for you, and only you.
If you are a pussy reading this website, then you are wasting your time.
The sad fact is that you are going to be screwed by men as well as by women.
After that, you will be dumped. You will get drunk. And then you will drown.
That will be the end of you. It happens to all male pussies.
But if you want to change, then turn now.
If you want to become a lion. If you want women to respect you.
If you want to men to honour you. If you want ladies to die for you.
If you want all these things, then, first read what is on this site and think deeply: Who turned you into a sissy.
You were born a MAN. What made you become a wimp.
After thinking, sit down and decide what kind of life you want: Girly life or manly life?
Once you have decided to be a real man, then go out there and get rid of your pussies mates. Throw away your sissy friends. Be with the lions. Seek them out. Lions are out there.
2011
-
LIONS
This website is for you, and only you.
If you are a pussy reading this website, then you are wasting your time.
The sad fact is that you are going to be screwed by men as well as by women.
After that, you will be dumped. You will get drunk. And then you will drown.
That will be the end of you. It happens to all male pussies.
But if you want to change, then turn now.
If you want to become a lion. If you want women to respect you.
If you want to men to honour you. If you want ladies to die for you.
If you want all these things, then, first read what is on this site and think deeply: Who turned you into a sissy.
You were born a MAN. What made you become a wimp.
After thinking, sit down and decide what kind of life you want: Girly life or manly life?
Once you have decided to be a real man, then go out there and get rid of your pussies mates. Throw away your sissy friends. Be with the lions. Seek them out. Lions are out there.
2011
-
Cowboy President
-
Cowboys were real men. President Obama is a woman.
From the Magazne: Psychology Today
Measuring Manhood
What makes a man a man?
If you are not a cowboy you are not a real man. Was that what Kathleen Parker was implying in "Obama: Our first female president" in The Washington Post last month?
Parker throws around phrases like “we perceive and appraise him according to cultural expectations.” And automatically the question springs to mind: who is this “we” you’re talking about? Kathleen, you mean “I” or “people like me perceive and appraise. . . .” Not we.
As a black male, I don’t perceive and appraise manhood the same as you do. Many culturally progressive white people, male and female, also don’t. Most young people who voted for Obama are not included in your “we”. Does the First Lady think he is a lesser man than, let's say, your husband down there in Camden, South Carolina?
Kathleen, when you say “. . . cultural expectations” perhaps you’re talking about the expectations of people who live in a shrinking part of the American cultural mix. I guess they would think that a singer like Curtis Mayfield, who sang in a high-pitched falsetto, had a girl’s voice. No, it’s a man’s voice. It’s another side of manhood.
Some of the ideas in your book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care, indicate what you think both masculine and feminine nature and roles should be. For example, you seem to believe that:
* erectile dysfunction is caused by young, sexually aggressive women
* women put the nation at risk by serving in the army.
As far as you and Obama are concerned, the problem is indeed with perceptions and appraisals. Here’s a joke that illustrates how your perceptions and appraisals can be viewed. It was sent to me by an African American woman who looks a little like the First Lady, but not as tall. This woman views Obama as a “heartwarming” male.
The joke:
One day the Pope came to Washington to visit with the President. Being the gentlemen that he is- President Obama took the Pope for a cruise down the Potomac on the presidential yacht.
While they were sitting and chatting on deck, the wind blew the Pope’s high hat off and into the water.
Being the gentleman that he is- President Obama quickly hopped overboard; tip-toed across the water and retrieved the hat.
He tip-toed back, climbed aboard the yacht and placed the hat back on the Pope’s head.
The Pope thanked the President and they sailed on.
From that joke, Kathleen Parker might write a column “Obama Can’t Swim!’’
Kathleen, you said Obama “lack of immediate, commanding action was perceived as a lack of leadership because, well, it was.” Says who? Scholars who have thoroughly researched it say that Obama has achieved more as our leader in his first term than any President since FDR. As a preface to Obama’s list of achievements, Dr. Robert P. Watson wrote:
“What most impresses me is the fact that Obama has accomplished so much not from a heavy-handed or top-down approach (Oh, Kathleen, I get it. Top-down is male) but from a style that has institutionalized efforts to reach across the aisle, encourage vigorous debate, and utilize town halls and panels of experts in the policy-making process (And that’s female? Wow!)”
By your reasoning does George Bush and his immediate, commanding action make him a real man? I guess, for you, a man like Obama who opposes torture (which you say you oppose), or who opposed inflicting “shock and awe” on the population of Baghdad (which I think you opposed) is not a real man.
At the remotest hint that you might not be able to hang onto your entitlements, a real man will torture and kill because that’s what men do. And you, a real woman, will speak against torturing and killing but welcome a real man home to bed.
Comment: Sissy men are easily spotted by women. Pussies can run, but they cannot hide.
-
Cowboys were real men. President Obama is a woman.
From the Magazne: Psychology Today
Measuring Manhood
What makes a man a man?
If you are not a cowboy you are not a real man. Was that what Kathleen Parker was implying in "Obama: Our first female president" in The Washington Post last month?
Parker throws around phrases like “we perceive and appraise him according to cultural expectations.” And automatically the question springs to mind: who is this “we” you’re talking about? Kathleen, you mean “I” or “people like me perceive and appraise. . . .” Not we.
As a black male, I don’t perceive and appraise manhood the same as you do. Many culturally progressive white people, male and female, also don’t. Most young people who voted for Obama are not included in your “we”. Does the First Lady think he is a lesser man than, let's say, your husband down there in Camden, South Carolina?
Kathleen, when you say “. . . cultural expectations” perhaps you’re talking about the expectations of people who live in a shrinking part of the American cultural mix. I guess they would think that a singer like Curtis Mayfield, who sang in a high-pitched falsetto, had a girl’s voice. No, it’s a man’s voice. It’s another side of manhood.
Some of the ideas in your book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care, indicate what you think both masculine and feminine nature and roles should be. For example, you seem to believe that:
* erectile dysfunction is caused by young, sexually aggressive women
* women put the nation at risk by serving in the army.
As far as you and Obama are concerned, the problem is indeed with perceptions and appraisals. Here’s a joke that illustrates how your perceptions and appraisals can be viewed. It was sent to me by an African American woman who looks a little like the First Lady, but not as tall. This woman views Obama as a “heartwarming” male.
The joke:
One day the Pope came to Washington to visit with the President. Being the gentlemen that he is- President Obama took the Pope for a cruise down the Potomac on the presidential yacht.
While they were sitting and chatting on deck, the wind blew the Pope’s high hat off and into the water.
Being the gentleman that he is- President Obama quickly hopped overboard; tip-toed across the water and retrieved the hat.
He tip-toed back, climbed aboard the yacht and placed the hat back on the Pope’s head.
The Pope thanked the President and they sailed on.
From that joke, Kathleen Parker might write a column “Obama Can’t Swim!’’
Kathleen, you said Obama “lack of immediate, commanding action was perceived as a lack of leadership because, well, it was.” Says who? Scholars who have thoroughly researched it say that Obama has achieved more as our leader in his first term than any President since FDR. As a preface to Obama’s list of achievements, Dr. Robert P. Watson wrote:
“What most impresses me is the fact that Obama has accomplished so much not from a heavy-handed or top-down approach (Oh, Kathleen, I get it. Top-down is male) but from a style that has institutionalized efforts to reach across the aisle, encourage vigorous debate, and utilize town halls and panels of experts in the policy-making process (And that’s female? Wow!)”
By your reasoning does George Bush and his immediate, commanding action make him a real man? I guess, for you, a man like Obama who opposes torture (which you say you oppose), or who opposed inflicting “shock and awe” on the population of Baghdad (which I think you opposed) is not a real man.
At the remotest hint that you might not be able to hang onto your entitlements, a real man will torture and kill because that’s what men do. And you, a real woman, will speak against torturing and killing but welcome a real man home to bed.
Comment: Sissy men are easily spotted by women. Pussies can run, but they cannot hide.
-
Cavemen Wanted
-
Wealth and education not on top of women's partner seeking agenda
From the Magazne: Psychology Today
Women want their man to be a caveman but caring
Women want a caring caveman, someone like Denzel Washington
Ideas about what constitutes a strong man are often framed in the negative. Real men, it is thought, are not obedient, needy, effeminate or acquiescent. Men who are perceived to have success in seducing women are seen as masculine and men who have relationships with other men that are overly intimate or sexual are definitely not seen as masculine. For many of us with distorted understanding of strength, the very qualities that make a relationship work make us fear that we are being wimpy and submissive, when in reality we're being strong in our ability to accommodate, be flexible and generous, and lacking in an obnoxious bravado.
In reality, a strong man is tolerant, flexible, generous, faithful, and competent without believing he's omnipotent, and more interested in being close than being worshipped. Women may fall and fall hard for a bad boy with a big ego, but are then devastated when that man is not protective and reliable, fun and funny, kind and accessible. Yet he needs to retain his wild side, which, when properly channeled, is rewarded by admiration, laughs and sex.
Comment: Sissy males are undesireable by females. They seek men who are aggressive yet kind, hard yet considerate, listen but dont talk.
-
Wealth and education not on top of women's partner seeking agenda
From the Magazne: Psychology Today
Women want their man to be a caveman but caring
Women want a caring caveman, someone like Denzel Washington
Ideas about what constitutes a strong man are often framed in the negative. Real men, it is thought, are not obedient, needy, effeminate or acquiescent. Men who are perceived to have success in seducing women are seen as masculine and men who have relationships with other men that are overly intimate or sexual are definitely not seen as masculine. For many of us with distorted understanding of strength, the very qualities that make a relationship work make us fear that we are being wimpy and submissive, when in reality we're being strong in our ability to accommodate, be flexible and generous, and lacking in an obnoxious bravado.
In reality, a strong man is tolerant, flexible, generous, faithful, and competent without believing he's omnipotent, and more interested in being close than being worshipped. Women may fall and fall hard for a bad boy with a big ego, but are then devastated when that man is not protective and reliable, fun and funny, kind and accessible. Yet he needs to retain his wild side, which, when properly channeled, is rewarded by admiration, laughs and sex.
Comment: Sissy males are undesireable by females. They seek men who are aggressive yet kind, hard yet considerate, listen but dont talk.
-
Sofa Sissies
-
New book reveals that modern society has turned males into sissies.
Anthropologist says Modern man is a wimp
Australian scientist Peter McAllister says today's man is worse then males in the past.
Anthropologist published a new book on modern man entitled "Manthropology"
The book is sub-titled "The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male."
The anthropologist research shows that ancient men could lift more, run faster, jump higher, and throw further then men living today. They were better men than 21st century wimps. Modern man is inferior to his predecessors in many among other fields. The scientist said that, despite modern training, spiked shoes and rubberized tracks, men of 21st century cannot beat cave men. There is a stark decline is abilities of men today. In the old days manhood was was an initiation ritual, everybody had to do it. It was something they did all the time and they lived very active lives from a very early age. They developed very phenomenal abilities in jumping. They were jumping from boyhood onwards to prove themselves. They had to be able to jump their own height to progress to manhood. Even women in the past had 10 percent more muscle bulk than modern European man, who is a wimp by comparison.
Dr McAllister said: "If you're reading this then you -- or the male you have bought it for -- are the worst man in history. No ifs, no buts, the worst man, period. As a class we are in fact the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet."
Comment: Modern living conditions have transformed men into pussies.
-
New book reveals that modern society has turned males into sissies.
Anthropologist says Modern man is a wimp
Australian scientist Peter McAllister says today's man is worse then males in the past.
Anthropologist published a new book on modern man entitled "Manthropology"
The book is sub-titled "The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male."
The anthropologist research shows that ancient men could lift more, run faster, jump higher, and throw further then men living today. They were better men than 21st century wimps. Modern man is inferior to his predecessors in many among other fields. The scientist said that, despite modern training, spiked shoes and rubberized tracks, men of 21st century cannot beat cave men. There is a stark decline is abilities of men today. In the old days manhood was was an initiation ritual, everybody had to do it. It was something they did all the time and they lived very active lives from a very early age. They developed very phenomenal abilities in jumping. They were jumping from boyhood onwards to prove themselves. They had to be able to jump their own height to progress to manhood. Even women in the past had 10 percent more muscle bulk than modern European man, who is a wimp by comparison.
Dr McAllister said: "If you're reading this then you -- or the male you have bought it for -- are the worst man in history. No ifs, no buts, the worst man, period. As a class we are in fact the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet."
Comment: Modern living conditions have transformed men into pussies.
-
Mummy's Boys
-
Mummy's boys are sissies. They cannot handle anything hard.
British newspaper Daily Mail:
Mothers are raising a generation of wimps
By SONIA POULTON
Enjoying a glass of early evening wine at a friend's house the other day, we were rudely interrupted by the wailing tones of her 12-year-old son. His plaintive yelp of hunger was swiftly attended to by his mother, who instructed him to "raid the fruit bowl".
He would, he said, but could she "peel an apple" for him. Embarrassed by my hearing this, she attempted to ignore him. He continued, repeating Dalek-fashion: "Mum, I'm hungry, Mum I'm hungry."
Finally, exasperated, she crashed her glass down on the table, stomped through to the kitchen, bashed a couple of doors about and returned with a face as a red as a tomato.
"Why couldn't he do that for himself?" I asked her.
"He doesn't know how to," was her snappy reply.
My friend's son is a wimp. Not in the traditional sense. He is not physically scrawny or the target of bullies (he plays junior rugby for our Gloucestershire town, and is popular with his peers) but he lacks backbone, gumption.
Sadly, he is not alone. Many boys, studies show, reach their 20s unable to make a cup of tea, iron, cook or even use a washing machine. Small wonder, then, that a third of all men aged 20 to 35 still live with their parents.
The feminist literature of the 1960s, which demonstrated how girls were illserved by education and society, has emerged rebranded and repackaged into the new century - except now it pertains to boys.
According to the academics, boys are the "new endangered and victimised group". They suffer more learning disabilities than girls, more school suspensions, more teen suicide and more violence, both as the receiver and giver.
This crisis was foreseen as long ago as the 19th century, by littleknown author William Byron Forbush. He warned of "the boy problem", envisaging male generations that would lack "necessary civilising influences, discipline, and character".
In 2007, we have a crisis far beyond his theories, prophetic as they were. There now exists a significant demographic of unfathered, untutored and undisciplined boys. In short, they are wimps.
So who is responsible for this unenviable state of affairs? For more than 30 years, and heightened in intensity over the past decade, the women of Britain - as primary carers either with a husband or partner, or as a single parent - have systematically mollycoddled their sons to within an inch of their lives.
Psychologists have long accepted that boys and girls are treated differently by their parents. For while girls are encouraged to be independent, boys are not.
Four years ago, as part of a psychology degree, I studied independence in primary school children. During the week-long observation a number of gender differences emerged.
One example was how mothers with boys are more likely to carry the school bags of their offspring than mothers with girls.
One mother in the study had a son and daughter at the school. The daughter was eight and the son ten. The daughter carried her own books, lunch bag, musical instrument and sports equipment into school - sometimes all at once in a gangling, tripping-over-herself fashion. The son, meanwhile, bounded along the pavement relieved of carrying his own school items; his mother did that for him.
When I queried this disparity, she told me it was "easier this way" and, besides, her daughter was "more helpful". That may be, but shouldn't her son have been encouraged to develop such behaviour?
While this may appear to be a trivial observation, it is indicative of the whole sorry arrangement between mothers and their sons.
Girls are still more likely than boys to be shown how to load the dishwasher and sort laundry into piles. Boys are treated with such a reverence around the house that they end up with the most cursory knowledge of dirty crockery.
Linda Hamlin, a child psychologist says: "Parents project their own attitudes and values onto their children. If a son doesn't have to help with housework but his sister does, that impacts on him by feeding him a false sense of power."
In light of recent research that claimed women are still doing the lion's share of housework despite holding down their own jobs, it would make sense, surely, if these very women nurtured their own sons' domestic abilities.
Not a bit of it. Mothers encourage this behaviour - it makes them feel needed - and the boys are only too happy to go along with it.
Most mothers I know love to make their sons a nice sandwich and a glass of milk - even if they are 25! Perhaps, for the mother concerned, it recaptures the innate sense of nurturing they felt so powerfully when their sons were small.
So who benefits from this codependency? Certainly not any hapless female who may chance across the path of these overgrown babies.
The term "Mummy's Boy" first surfaced in the British comic Monster Fun in 1975. It was about a teenage boy whose mum treated him like a baby. Thirty years on, it's no laughing matter.
Mothers are raising wimpy sons to believe that life is smooth and flawless. It is a rude awakening for them to discover it also contains its (un)fair share of danger, disappointment and failure.
Mummy's boys are shielded from discomfort, which is unfortunate, because almost all of life's important lessons are usually accompanied by a degree of pain.
A friend of mine, with a particularly irreverent sense of humour, has little time for child wimpery. Whenever her ten-year-old son complains about anything she deems silly, she will tell him: "You'll live. If not, you'll die. Either way, problem solved."
She said it recently in a supermarket queue and she was glared at and tut-tutted, quietly, by other customers.
But I support her. It's time to call a halt to this shoddy and damaging practice of emasculating our young boys. Permissive, liberal parenting, with its lack of challenges to the child, has served merely to create boys incapable of "just getting on with it".
Cultural snobs and selfappointed "child experts", naturally, will disagree. Sensitivity to the feelings of young boys makes for a more tolerant and cohesive society, they say.
Yes, but ultimately civilisation will crumble if boys continue to progress along the hopeless, whinging course they have been set on.
It seems clear to me that a world where young men grow in physical maturity but little else is to be avoided at all costs. And unless this decades-old pattern is reversed, we face a future dominated by boys who never grow up to be men. Only wimps.
Comment: Ladies want hard men not mummy's boys. Sissies are dislikes by women.
-
Mummy's boys are sissies. They cannot handle anything hard.
British newspaper Daily Mail:
Mothers are raising a generation of wimps
By SONIA POULTON
Enjoying a glass of early evening wine at a friend's house the other day, we were rudely interrupted by the wailing tones of her 12-year-old son. His plaintive yelp of hunger was swiftly attended to by his mother, who instructed him to "raid the fruit bowl".
He would, he said, but could she "peel an apple" for him. Embarrassed by my hearing this, she attempted to ignore him. He continued, repeating Dalek-fashion: "Mum, I'm hungry, Mum I'm hungry."
Finally, exasperated, she crashed her glass down on the table, stomped through to the kitchen, bashed a couple of doors about and returned with a face as a red as a tomato.
"Why couldn't he do that for himself?" I asked her.
"He doesn't know how to," was her snappy reply.
My friend's son is a wimp. Not in the traditional sense. He is not physically scrawny or the target of bullies (he plays junior rugby for our Gloucestershire town, and is popular with his peers) but he lacks backbone, gumption.
Sadly, he is not alone. Many boys, studies show, reach their 20s unable to make a cup of tea, iron, cook or even use a washing machine. Small wonder, then, that a third of all men aged 20 to 35 still live with their parents.
The feminist literature of the 1960s, which demonstrated how girls were illserved by education and society, has emerged rebranded and repackaged into the new century - except now it pertains to boys.
According to the academics, boys are the "new endangered and victimised group". They suffer more learning disabilities than girls, more school suspensions, more teen suicide and more violence, both as the receiver and giver.
This crisis was foreseen as long ago as the 19th century, by littleknown author William Byron Forbush. He warned of "the boy problem", envisaging male generations that would lack "necessary civilising influences, discipline, and character".
In 2007, we have a crisis far beyond his theories, prophetic as they were. There now exists a significant demographic of unfathered, untutored and undisciplined boys. In short, they are wimps.
So who is responsible for this unenviable state of affairs? For more than 30 years, and heightened in intensity over the past decade, the women of Britain - as primary carers either with a husband or partner, or as a single parent - have systematically mollycoddled their sons to within an inch of their lives.
Psychologists have long accepted that boys and girls are treated differently by their parents. For while girls are encouraged to be independent, boys are not.
Four years ago, as part of a psychology degree, I studied independence in primary school children. During the week-long observation a number of gender differences emerged.
One example was how mothers with boys are more likely to carry the school bags of their offspring than mothers with girls.
One mother in the study had a son and daughter at the school. The daughter was eight and the son ten. The daughter carried her own books, lunch bag, musical instrument and sports equipment into school - sometimes all at once in a gangling, tripping-over-herself fashion. The son, meanwhile, bounded along the pavement relieved of carrying his own school items; his mother did that for him.
When I queried this disparity, she told me it was "easier this way" and, besides, her daughter was "more helpful". That may be, but shouldn't her son have been encouraged to develop such behaviour?
While this may appear to be a trivial observation, it is indicative of the whole sorry arrangement between mothers and their sons.
Girls are still more likely than boys to be shown how to load the dishwasher and sort laundry into piles. Boys are treated with such a reverence around the house that they end up with the most cursory knowledge of dirty crockery.
Linda Hamlin, a child psychologist says: "Parents project their own attitudes and values onto their children. If a son doesn't have to help with housework but his sister does, that impacts on him by feeding him a false sense of power."
In light of recent research that claimed women are still doing the lion's share of housework despite holding down their own jobs, it would make sense, surely, if these very women nurtured their own sons' domestic abilities.
Not a bit of it. Mothers encourage this behaviour - it makes them feel needed - and the boys are only too happy to go along with it.
Most mothers I know love to make their sons a nice sandwich and a glass of milk - even if they are 25! Perhaps, for the mother concerned, it recaptures the innate sense of nurturing they felt so powerfully when their sons were small.
So who benefits from this codependency? Certainly not any hapless female who may chance across the path of these overgrown babies.
The term "Mummy's Boy" first surfaced in the British comic Monster Fun in 1975. It was about a teenage boy whose mum treated him like a baby. Thirty years on, it's no laughing matter.
Mothers are raising wimpy sons to believe that life is smooth and flawless. It is a rude awakening for them to discover it also contains its (un)fair share of danger, disappointment and failure.
Mummy's boys are shielded from discomfort, which is unfortunate, because almost all of life's important lessons are usually accompanied by a degree of pain.
A friend of mine, with a particularly irreverent sense of humour, has little time for child wimpery. Whenever her ten-year-old son complains about anything she deems silly, she will tell him: "You'll live. If not, you'll die. Either way, problem solved."
She said it recently in a supermarket queue and she was glared at and tut-tutted, quietly, by other customers.
But I support her. It's time to call a halt to this shoddy and damaging practice of emasculating our young boys. Permissive, liberal parenting, with its lack of challenges to the child, has served merely to create boys incapable of "just getting on with it".
Cultural snobs and selfappointed "child experts", naturally, will disagree. Sensitivity to the feelings of young boys makes for a more tolerant and cohesive society, they say.
Yes, but ultimately civilisation will crumble if boys continue to progress along the hopeless, whinging course they have been set on.
It seems clear to me that a world where young men grow in physical maturity but little else is to be avoided at all costs. And unless this decades-old pattern is reversed, we face a future dominated by boys who never grow up to be men. Only wimps.
Comment: Ladies want hard men not mummy's boys. Sissies are dislikes by women.
-
60s killed manhood
-
Women loved rough men of 1950s. Today females dont know how to get them back.
British newspaper Daily Mail:
Feminism has destroyed real men
Women thought the last victory of equality was to make men more 'sensitive'.
Nirpal Dhaliwal says the bitter irony is women don't like wimps after all.
In this article, the writer is sure to infuriate the opposite sex (including his wife Liz Jones).
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.
Comment: Women have turned hard men into sissies and yet they demand the same type of manliness. Women cannot seem to makeup their minds.
-
Women loved rough men of 1950s. Today females dont know how to get them back.
British newspaper Daily Mail:
Feminism has destroyed real men
Women thought the last victory of equality was to make men more 'sensitive'.
Nirpal Dhaliwal says the bitter irony is women don't like wimps after all.
In this article, the writer is sure to infuriate the opposite sex (including his wife Liz Jones).
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.
Comment: Women have turned hard men into sissies and yet they demand the same type of manliness. Women cannot seem to makeup their minds.
-
Broken Men
-
Women believe that modern men are weak and wankers, spineless and impotent
British newspaper: The Times
Today’s Man:
Broken down by age and sex
Once again we modern British men have been baring our souls about the subject that seems to interest us most. Amazingly, it’s not breasts, booze or footie. All so passé! No, it’s ourselves. It’s existential angst about the shrivelled state of manhood in what is increasingly a women’s world.
At least, it is for the one in seven British men labelled “determinist” by the men’s magazine GQ. This illustrious organ has just commissioned YouGov to survey the attitudes of 3,000 British men to life, the universe and everything. It now announces self-importantly that it has “uncovered the two major trends in masculinity in the 21st century: evolutionism and determinism”. It admits that only 39 per cent of us are completely one thing or t’other (24 per cent evolutionist, 15 per cent determinist). But all modern men, it claims, veer towards one or other of these poles.
So in this context, what exactly is an evolutionist or a determinist? Very little to do with God or Charles Darwin, apparently. It transpires that what defines modern man is – surprise, surprise! – his attitude to women. Put bluntly, evolutionists believe that, if it is a woman’s world, it’s one to which men can happily adapt. They applaud female emancipation and, where it occurs, female leadership. And they accept that men have to be prepared to give a lot more – both in their relationships with women, and in the home – than may have been the case in the past.
Determinists, on the other hand, are unreconstructed “men’s men”. They feel confused, worried and possibly threatened by the feminisation of society. They believe men are already less relevant than women in the 21st century, and more than a third of them actually believe men to be “doomed” as a species – whatever that means.
If they have a female boss, they resent her. They probably would have been happier living in their dad’s era, if not their grandad's – when it was men who set the agenda in everything from politics to culture. GQ quotes one determinist as grumbling that “Jagger wasn’t defined by the fact that Marianne Faithfull fancied him, whereas Doherty is defined by the fact that Kate Moss fancies him.” (Of course, there might be a simple explanation for that. Jagger was a top-class performer.)
What GQ doesn’t tell us, frustratingly, is how evolutionists and determinists break down in terms of age and status. If the determinists are mostly middle-aged or older men stuck in deadend jobs, their bitterness towards women – a classic psychological transference of frustration at their own inadequacies – is still sad and misplaced, but hardly worrying. In time their generation will disappear, like the dinosaurs.
If, on the other hand, the determinists are mostly young, educated, high-achieving hot-shots determined to reassert macho values in what they see as an overfeminised world, that’s far more dangerous. It suggests that behind “laddishness” lies a dangerous anger that will keep the battle of the sexes raging for decades to come.
Let me pause here for an airing of private grief. I touched on the vexed question of male-female relationships a couple of months ago, in an article which (I innocently thought) was gently ironic and self-deprecating. The bulging postbag I received contained the most vitriolic responses of the year so far – and that’s saying something.
What does that tell me? Perhaps that we over-45s have indeed witnessed a revolution in gender relationships during our lifetimes – but that, like most revolutions, this has left a festering aftermath of bewilderment, resentment and acts of revenge. And not only on the male side. Some women feel not empowered but overwhelmed by the awesome notion that they can “have it all”. Some feel embittered because society has not moved as fast as they expected to remove the obstacles, overt and covert, that continue to discriminate against women.
And some, no doubt, are just as “determinist” as men. I don’t know a single woman who would say “a woman’s place is in the home”. But I know several – young, middle-aged and old – who are clearly at their most fulfilled in the home. And that’s a piece of observation, not male propaganda.
What makes generalisation about this prickly subject so difficult, of course, is that we are all tainted by personal experience. A couple who have a loving, mutually enriching relationship will regard the opposite sex in a very different light from a disenchanted thirtysomething singleton whose heart has already been broken half a dozen times. In this field, it is incredibly difficult to disentangle one’s objective perceptions from one’s circumstances, in order to survey humanity as a whole. Besides which, on this question humanity is at its least whole. I suspect that GQ would receive startlingly different responses if it repeated its survey in Italy or Russia, let alone Iran or Pakistan.
One statistic, however, made me sit up and scowl. Some 86 per cent of the 3,000 British men surveyed agreed with the proposition that “fathers should be a role model for their children”. Good grief, what on earth do the other 14 per cent think they are playing at? And what does that say about the roots of gang culture and youth crime?
Comment: What use to women is a man who is both educated and rich yet gutless and dishonurable. Modern men have done universities byt they dont know what women really want.
2007
Women believe that modern men are weak and wankers, spineless and impotent
British newspaper: The Times
Today’s Man:
Broken down by age and sex
Once again we modern British men have been baring our souls about the subject that seems to interest us most. Amazingly, it’s not breasts, booze or footie. All so passé! No, it’s ourselves. It’s existential angst about the shrivelled state of manhood in what is increasingly a women’s world.
At least, it is for the one in seven British men labelled “determinist” by the men’s magazine GQ. This illustrious organ has just commissioned YouGov to survey the attitudes of 3,000 British men to life, the universe and everything. It now announces self-importantly that it has “uncovered the two major trends in masculinity in the 21st century: evolutionism and determinism”. It admits that only 39 per cent of us are completely one thing or t’other (24 per cent evolutionist, 15 per cent determinist). But all modern men, it claims, veer towards one or other of these poles.
So in this context, what exactly is an evolutionist or a determinist? Very little to do with God or Charles Darwin, apparently. It transpires that what defines modern man is – surprise, surprise! – his attitude to women. Put bluntly, evolutionists believe that, if it is a woman’s world, it’s one to which men can happily adapt. They applaud female emancipation and, where it occurs, female leadership. And they accept that men have to be prepared to give a lot more – both in their relationships with women, and in the home – than may have been the case in the past.
Determinists, on the other hand, are unreconstructed “men’s men”. They feel confused, worried and possibly threatened by the feminisation of society. They believe men are already less relevant than women in the 21st century, and more than a third of them actually believe men to be “doomed” as a species – whatever that means.
If they have a female boss, they resent her. They probably would have been happier living in their dad’s era, if not their grandad's – when it was men who set the agenda in everything from politics to culture. GQ quotes one determinist as grumbling that “Jagger wasn’t defined by the fact that Marianne Faithfull fancied him, whereas Doherty is defined by the fact that Kate Moss fancies him.” (Of course, there might be a simple explanation for that. Jagger was a top-class performer.)
What GQ doesn’t tell us, frustratingly, is how evolutionists and determinists break down in terms of age and status. If the determinists are mostly middle-aged or older men stuck in deadend jobs, their bitterness towards women – a classic psychological transference of frustration at their own inadequacies – is still sad and misplaced, but hardly worrying. In time their generation will disappear, like the dinosaurs.
If, on the other hand, the determinists are mostly young, educated, high-achieving hot-shots determined to reassert macho values in what they see as an overfeminised world, that’s far more dangerous. It suggests that behind “laddishness” lies a dangerous anger that will keep the battle of the sexes raging for decades to come.
Let me pause here for an airing of private grief. I touched on the vexed question of male-female relationships a couple of months ago, in an article which (I innocently thought) was gently ironic and self-deprecating. The bulging postbag I received contained the most vitriolic responses of the year so far – and that’s saying something.
What does that tell me? Perhaps that we over-45s have indeed witnessed a revolution in gender relationships during our lifetimes – but that, like most revolutions, this has left a festering aftermath of bewilderment, resentment and acts of revenge. And not only on the male side. Some women feel not empowered but overwhelmed by the awesome notion that they can “have it all”. Some feel embittered because society has not moved as fast as they expected to remove the obstacles, overt and covert, that continue to discriminate against women.
And some, no doubt, are just as “determinist” as men. I don’t know a single woman who would say “a woman’s place is in the home”. But I know several – young, middle-aged and old – who are clearly at their most fulfilled in the home. And that’s a piece of observation, not male propaganda.
What makes generalisation about this prickly subject so difficult, of course, is that we are all tainted by personal experience. A couple who have a loving, mutually enriching relationship will regard the opposite sex in a very different light from a disenchanted thirtysomething singleton whose heart has already been broken half a dozen times. In this field, it is incredibly difficult to disentangle one’s objective perceptions from one’s circumstances, in order to survey humanity as a whole. Besides which, on this question humanity is at its least whole. I suspect that GQ would receive startlingly different responses if it repeated its survey in Italy or Russia, let alone Iran or Pakistan.
One statistic, however, made me sit up and scowl. Some 86 per cent of the 3,000 British men surveyed agreed with the proposition that “fathers should be a role model for their children”. Good grief, what on earth do the other 14 per cent think they are playing at? And what does that say about the roots of gang culture and youth crime?
Comment: What use to women is a man who is both educated and rich yet gutless and dishonurable. Modern men have done universities byt they dont know what women really want.
2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
