Post Reply
Page 5 of 13  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Are men becoming wimps?
4 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2010 - 3:04AM #41
Yavanna
Posts: 3,149

Nov 18, 2010 -- 4:03PM, mainecaptain wrote:


I agree with Ebon, having muscles does not make you less wimpy and not having visible muscles does not make you wimpy.


Wimpy is personality, and I known many wimps.


 


Who the heck makes up these stupid ideas?





It's this guy who lives in a cellar and sells his work on E-bay. Nice guy, name is Reginald.

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2010 - 8:49AM #42
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

When I was a Navy Corpsman many considered us wimps such as the neanderthal CBs.


What wimp would risk their life to save others?


Ask any Marine who has been in combat if Corpsmen are wimps.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2010 - 9:07AM #43
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Marcion,


I'm glad you put in your last sentence.  I was going to remind those who didn't recall that the Marine Corps. does not have its own medics, combat medics with the Leathernecks are Navy Corpsmen (women/--don't think so yet).   Certainly NOT wimpish in the least.  They do what Marines do, without weapons.


 


"Corpsman, UP!!!"

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2010 - 10:27AM #44
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,748

"wimp" "masculine" "macho" "tough" "girly-girl" "butch" "feminine"


These are all used to label people, but what each term means differs from person to person. Few people are so one-dimensional that a single label defines them accurately. Commonly these labels are used to put others down, or to make one seem or feel superior to others. What good does that do?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2010 - 10:40AM #45
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Nov 17, 2010 -- 8:59PM, arielg wrote:


True equality would be an absolute and complete recognition that men and women have equal intrinsic value -- that neither gender is supeior to the other.


One is superior in some things and the other is superior in other things, depending on the measure you use, on what you want to do and the role each is playing. These differences are much more interesting than the boring and confusing “equality” that is mainly a sterile intellectual conception.


 And, therefore, the human paradigm would not be primarily patriarchal, but rather a creation stemming from equal parts of both feminine and masculine energy.


You mean the paradigm would be a hermaphrodite?


You can’t do away with the variety and differences of life. That is the glory of creation.





Never said anything about doing away with the variety. I think you're stuck in the idea that equality means, or requires, homogeny. And I don't think that's the case at all -- either between the genders, or among individuals. Again, I'm talking equality of intrinsic value. In todays world, women overtly don't have the same intrinsic value as men. And, I would argue, even in "advanced" Western countries, they still don't, although it's more of a subtle, underlying thing -- rather than blatantly overt -- such as in the Middle East. In other words, the sexism in the West is more of an underlying, built-in, harder-to-spot thing. But it's still very much there.


And I don't know where you got hermaphodite out of any of that.  


What I meant was this: Up until and even including the present, the dominant paradigm has been/still is primarily a patriarchal invention. In such a world, women gain "equality" only by "suceeding" within that paradigm. That's not true equality. And that's what I think we still have in the West. We give women a false "equality" by making them "equal" in what is actually still a man's world.


For example, we might nowadays praise a woman for having the ambition and agression to make it all the way to CEO status in the corporate world. But, my assertion is, the coporate world, and the importance of CEO status were primarily male inventions to begin with. So, has she really gained "equality," or has she only gained approval by making it in a man's world? I suggest it's the latter.


So, if women had as much to do with the invention of the paradigm by which we imagine, structure and place value on things to begin with -- the world would probably be not only better, but something we've not yet imagined. Corporate structure and CEO status would be entirely different. Or, they might not even exist at all.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2010 - 10:48AM #46
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Nov 19, 2010 -- 10:27AM, newsjunkie wrote:


"wimp" "masculine" "macho" "tough" "girly-girl" "butch" "feminine"


These are all used to label people, but what each term means differs from person to person. Few people are so one-dimensional that a single label defines them accurately. Commonly these labels are used to put others down, or to make one seem or feel superior to others. What good does that do?





Everybody, male or female, has some wimp and some badass in them -- depending upon the situation and the demands of circumstances.


So, yes, labeling people only one thing is pointless and ignorant.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2010 - 12:00PM #47
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,714
Personally, I was intrigued during the reign of the former Current Occupant how many persons without military service became experts on lecturing on "manliness" and "Fight 'em there, of fight 'em in West Monroe, Louisiana." and had all kinds of interesting, albeit specious, excuses for having avoided military service, so as to avoid serving in Iraq.

Maybe, perchance, "wimpiness" is inversely propotional to the boasting about the "glories of military service" and the actual, real experience thereof (?).
*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2010 - 12:29PM #48
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Remember, in Basic Training, and when he was first assigned to the 3d Infantry, Audie Murphy was considered too "frail" and "wimpy" to serve in the Infantry.


You remember Audie, don't you, the single most decorated soldier in American military history, every award up to and including the Medal of Honor.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2010 - 2:22PM #49
shirleyj227
Posts: 10,991

LOL I find it interesting that this talk of men not being wimpy has morphed into talk about the military.


As far as I can tell men have not gotten wimpy but that may be because I live in Germany. Overall they are very masculine. Maybe it is just American men?SurprisedWink


All women have things that they view as wimpy. If a man does not like nature I view him as wimpy. If a man is not very intelligent I view him as wimpy. If a man can not listen to a lady I view him as wimpy. If a man puts down men who are gay I view them as wimpy. If a man does not enjoy at least some sports I view him as wimpy. If a man is afraid of talking about what is in their hearts I view him as wimpy. If a man will not do everything within his power to support his family I view him as wimpy.


All women have their own list but normally do not talk about it I think. Would you agree?


Shirley


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 19, 2010 - 2:29PM #50
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,890

Nov 19, 2010 -- 2:22PM, shirleyj227 wrote:


LOL I find it interesting that this talk of men not being wimpy has morphed into talk about the military.


As far as I can tell men have not gotten wimpy but that may be because I live in Germany. Overall they are very masculine. Maybe it is just American men?


All women have things that they view as wimpy. If a man does not like nature I view him as wimpy. If a man is not very intelligent I view him as wimpy. If a man can not listen to a lady I view him as wimpy. If a man puts down men who are gay I view them as wimpy. If a man does not enjoy at least some sports I view him as wimpy. If a man is afraid of talking about what is in their hearts I view him as wimpy. If a man will not do everything within his power to support his family I view him as wimpy.


All women have their own list but normally do not talk about it I think. Would you agree?


Shirley


 





Yes, I agree.


Your list is quite different from what most American women would consider wimpy, I think. But I'm a man, so I may be wrong on that. I'm basing my opinion on what I've observed.

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 13  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook