Society has not failed men, society has succeeded. If you want to be a man who channels your aggression, you need to strike out on your own or build an army of followers. There are still outlets for manly activities, they are just different.
Society has not failed men, society has succeeded. If you want to be a man who channels your aggression, you need to strike out on your own or build an army of followers. There are still outlets for manly activities, they are just different.
The bottomline is, for men, talking over taking action as a strategy is likely a detriment rather than a benefit or even just a neutral. How that strategy works out for women, or how it ranks among other strategies, is not relevant to GP's point. The only implication "feminizing" has here, is that women are not nearly as punished for prioritizing talking as a strategy as men are.
> That is why you see the feminizing of men. Talking about your feelings, etc. This doesn't work for men. Action works for men. They have eliminated most sources of action
then the author has failed to communicate effectively. Because on face value, this claim is unfounded, uncited and frankly sexist.
> The bottomline is
No, let's not shift discussion away from that which I objected. I objected to OP's sexist rhetoric. I don't care about the bottom line, if everything above it is invalid.
> The only implication "feminizing" has here, is that women are not nearly as punished for prioritizing talking as a strategy as men are.
Source?
Anyway, I asked OP to clarify their comment and I will wait for OP to do that instead of letting someone else re-interpret their words.
take a deep breath. None of what you said is true.