"Be a man"

[shortsboy]

Masculinity is probably the most misunderstood concept I can think of.

It has nothing to do with banging chicks, starting fights, getting buff or being a dick. Masculinity is about internal mastery, independence and confidence. This means being able to manage your own emotions internally without showing weakness. It also means being confident and independent enough to be assertive and risk taking. They are leadership behaviors.

Some can develop this, some can't. For those that can't the results can be brutal. Being depressed in a society that punishes depression.

The three most damaging words I believe you can tell your child is to "be a man". Many kids are being brought up on that phrase, and it's unhealthy and uncompromising.

Maybe in a perfect world. But traditional masculine men have the best life outcomes. If you have a son, you would want him to show those characteristics.

They are the leaders, have higher employment value and higher sexual value than feminized men. If they can handle it, it will develop character traits that are valued by society, if they can't... well yeah it will be damaging. But a parent has a responsibility to know when you are pushing your child too hard.



EDIT: the world is slowly changing though. Look at how popular it is for young guys to hit the gym/steroids and get huge. They think it is masculine, but I couldn't think of anything more feminine than taking an extreme approach in the name of vanity and approval from others.

 

[Oryx]

Masculinity is probably the most misunderstood concept I can think of.

It has nothing to do with banging chicks, starting fights, getting buff or being a dick. Masculinity is about internal mastery, independence and confidence. This means being able to manage your own emotions internally without showing weakness. It also means being confident and independent enough to be assertive and risk taking. They are leadership behaviors.

Some can develop this, some can't. For those that can't the results can be brutal. Being depressed in a society that punishes depression.



Maybe in a perfect world. But traditional masculine men have the best life outcomes. If you have a son, you would want him to show those characteristics.

They are the leaders, have higher employment value and higher sexual value than feminized men. If they can handle it, it will develop character traits that are valued by society, if they can't... well yeah it will be damaging. But a parent has a responsibility to know when you are pushing your child too hard.



EDIT: the world is slowly changing though. Look at how popular it is for young guys to hit the gym/steroids and get huge. They think it is masculine, but I couldn't think of anything more feminine than taking an extreme approach in the name of vanity and approval from others.

I have two questions based on this post:

First of all, based on the last sentence compared to the rest of the post, do you seriously believe that masculinity is full of good traits while femininity is bad traits? You listed off all the things that masculine is and denied that it's a bad thing, while claiming that femininity is vanity. It seems like you're perpetuating the exact stereotype that is causing damage to young men - telling them "don't be womanly, because women are vain and care too much about approval from others! Be manly, men are better!"

Second question: Why do you believe your definition of masculinity is right and the rest of society is wrong? I've always understood the abstract concept of masculinity as what society defines it as; this is why it used to be masculine to wear heels in medieval Europe, because their society defined it as masculine, and this is why it is no longer masculine to wear heels, because our society does not. Do you claim to have knowledge of some objective form of masculinity, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the shifting definition of masculinity over centuries? If not, why is your subjective definition more correct than the definition of society? This sounds like a modified No True Scotsman; masculinity isn't bad because those doing bad things for masculinity aren't really doing masculine things.

 

[shortsboy]

I have two questions based on this post:

First of all, based on the last sentence compared to the rest of the post, do you seriously believe that masculinity is full of good traits while femininity is bad traits? You listed off all the things that masculine is and denied that it's a bad thing, while claiming that femininity is vanity. It seems like you're perpetuating the exact stereotype that is causing damage to young men - telling them "don't be womanly, because women are vain and care too much about approval from others! Be manly, men are better!"

Second question: Why do you believe your definition of masculinity is right and the rest of society is wrong? I've always understood the abstract concept of masculinity as what society defines it as; this is why it used to be masculine to wear heels in medieval Europe, because their society defined it as masculine, and this is why it is no longer masculine to wear heels, because our society does not. Do you claim to have knowledge of some objective form of masculinity, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the shifting definition of masculinity over centuries? If not, why is your subjective definition more correct than the definition of society? This sounds like a modified No True Scotsman; masculinity isn't bad because those doing bad things for masculinity aren't really doing masculine things.

Q1. It's not good to encourage a boy to be a 'man' because a 'man' is better. It is because if he fits societies expectations he will have better life outcomes. You can fight against society, or make peace with it.

Q2. If my definition of masculinity doesn't resonate with you. That's fine, it's up to you.

 

[Oryx]

Q1. It's not good to encourage a boy to be a 'man' because a 'man' is better. It is because if he fits societies expectations he will have better life outcomes. You can fight against society, or make peace with it.

Q2. If my definition of masculinity doesn't resonate with you. That's fine, it's up to you.

Responding to a debate with "that's just how I feel" is never a thoughtful argument - why do you feel that your personal definition is more accurate than society's definition? Do you by default define masculinity as positive, so then when something negative comes from masculinity you can dismiss it as not really masculine at all? You have to have come up with your personal definition as separate from society's definition, which means there has to be a thought process behind why you decided things seen as masculine from society's perspective aren't actually masculine.

Your first answer didn't answer my question at all. I was pointing out how you describe femininity as including " taking an extreme approach in the name of vanity and approval from others", and include all positive traits in masculinity. Do you believe masculinity includes no negative traits, or that femininity is inherently less than masculinity? You've already described how your definition of masculinity differs from society's, so society's reaction to masculinity vs. femininity is irrelevant to how you define them.

Edit: I would argue that instead of trying to get everyone in the world to fit into the acceptable box so they get treated well, we should teach our children and society at large not to care about the box so people get treated well by default. When it comes down to it, a man is not "less than" for wearing a dress, and shouldn't be treated worse, so the idea of trying to force him to act more masculine so he can get benefits is abhorrent to me; instead I would try to effect change in the direct area around him to get those near us to see that there's nothing wrong with it, changing their attitudes towards non-traditional self-expression.

 

[shortsboy]

Responding to a debate with "that's just how I feel" is never a thoughtful argument

I am happy with my original post and it accurately covers how I feel. So I don't need to go around in circles debating the same point. If you don't agree with me, that's cool. I can't please them all.

Your first answer didn't answer my question at all. I was pointing out how you describe femininity as including " taking an extreme approach in the name of vanity and approval from others", and include all positive traits in masculinity. Do you believe masculinity includes no negative traits, or that femininity is inherently less than masculinity? You've already described how your definition of masculinity differs from society's, so society's reaction to masculinity vs. femininity is irrelevant to how you define them.

Vanity on appearance is a feminine trait, and men are adopting it. It is evidence of shifting expectations in society.

I described the ideal form of masculinity. Both masculine and feminine contain positive and negative traits. It's not a matter or better or worse but different.

 

[TickleTot]

I'd rather just be who i am, and love me for just being myself, it doesn't matter if you're wimpy or nerdy everyone cant be the same we are all different and alot of share so much in common if only the masses of people could see this.

be in love and in one

~TickleTot

 

[Oryx]

I am happy with my original post and it accurately covers how I feel. So I don't need to go around in circles debating the same point. If you don't agree with me, that's cool. I can't please them all.



Vanity on appearance is a feminine trait, and men are adopting it. It is evidence of shifting expectations in society.

I described the ideal form of masculinity. Both masculine and feminine contain positive and negative traits. It's not a matter or better or worse but different.

What I'm asking is for you to dig deeper into what you think and explain why you think that way. If you simply rely on gut instinct without digging into why that gut instinct exists, your opinions become based on not what's right and logical, but on what you were raised to believe by the people around you and society as a whole. I guess some people don't care too much about defensible opinions that are ethically sound and logical, but I assumed you would as you're posting in a forum designed to discuss and debate with your opinion. Forgive me if I assumed wrong.

 

[twocows]

I have two questions based on this post:

First of all, based on the last sentence compared to the rest of the post, do you seriously believe that masculinity is full of good traits while femininity is bad traits? You listed off all the things that masculine is and denied that it's a bad thing, while claiming that femininity is vanity. It seems like you're perpetuating the exact stereotype that is causing damage to young men - telling them "don't be womanly, because women are vain and care too much about approval from others! Be manly, men are better!"

Second question: Why do you believe your definition of masculinity is right and the rest of society is wrong? I've always understood the abstract concept of masculinity as what society defines it as; this is why it used to be masculine to wear heels in medieval Europe, because their society defined it as masculine, and this is why it is no longer masculine to wear heels, because our society does not. Do you claim to have knowledge of some objective form of masculinity, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the shifting definition of masculinity over centuries? If not, why is your subjective definition more correct than the definition of society? This sounds like a modified No True Scotsman; masculinity isn't bad because those doing bad things for masculinity aren't really doing masculine things.

I'm not him and I can't speak for him, but the way I read it was that he was trying to point out that there are good and bad elements associated with both masculinity and femininity.

Personally, I say just strive for the good in both. Bravery, self-betterment, and assertiveness are things that could benefit most people. Likewise, prudence, empathy, and tact are also things that benefit most people. While traditionally gender roles like were once very useful from an evolutionary standpoint (they encouraged adherence to and specialization in jobs that better fit sex-based physical attributes), I think the modern world is a different beast. The story of the modern world is every person to the best of their ability. The challenges we face today require well-rounded people who can see the bigger picture, who can handle unexpected hurdles and overcome them.

 

[Dter ic]

Masculinity is about internal mastery, independence and confidence. This means being able to manage your own emotions internally without showing weakness. It also means being confident and independent enough to be assertive and risk taking. They are leadership behaviors.

Some can develop this, some can't. For those that can't the results can be brutal. Being depressed in a society that punishes depression.

And what are we meant to do with boys who aren't able to develop 'masculine' traits as well as others and consequently fall into depression?

Of course, I know that they should get help from someone. But the problem with masculinity is that it overemphasizes independence so much that it doesn't tell young boys that they should go and talk to someone if they ever feel in the need for help or maybe to be honest with themselves. I think that's what's most damaging about this belief. It doesn't help that feminism places a great deal about women seeking help if they face issues which can sometimes neglect males facing similar issues too.

 

[François2]

Bah. This topic is so interesting but so hard to approach at the same time. I think it's pretty much accepted as fact that young males are boxed into roles that possibly don't suit them, and while people in general get put into boxes, this one is probably the most harmful [due to it actively discouraging stuff that would help one deal with the pressures of it]. My own "story" with this is not overly deep or anything - my first friends were girls and the idea of purposefully trying to be masculine was not something that ever really "hit" me. My sister was probably the biggest enforcer of masculine ideals in my life, e.g "why are you not eating that boys eat anything stop being a girl!!!!!!" and so on [not interesting] but I always felt she was unreasonable in her stance. Then there was the homophobic bullying for being too feminine. But that also kinda bounced off me for reasons I am not at all capable of explaining.

-Anyway-, I would consider myself a pretty strong person in general but unfortunately I cannot say that I am some sort of shining beacon of a male overcoming a society trying to box him in. The fact that I had plenty of female friends meant that I never really cared how males looked at me, and in any case homosexuality tends to liberate anyone from society's expectations as regards gender roles. Which I suppose is a positive - stereotypes would dictate that if you're feminine you're more likely to be gay, in which case you can afford to pay a tad less attention to the maintenance of a male image.

As has been said I don't believe masculinity to be a bad thing, it has its positives just as femininity does and as twocows has said, a mix of both is essential for one to really function in society. But that's not something that means a lot to children/adolescents/young adults who feel the need to suppress their own personalities to avoid the scorn of others (I know too many people in that situation). The scary thing is it's something that's enforced by children to arguably a greater degree than it is by adults. You could live with adults all your life and receive barely any comments on how masculine or feminine you are, but it's the children who really try to exterminate any sort of difference from the supposed norm...

The easy thing to say is just "get parents to tell their children they can be whatever they want to be!!" but it's something we've had in society since society became a thing, and it's enforced by the segregation of genders in culture in any case. Society can undergo a huge amount of change in a short period of time and being optimistic I could see a fairly speedy (in the grand scheme of things) decline in the importance of gender roles within society. But it's equally as likely that progress will remain at a snail's pace.

^ sorry if I took all those words to essentially say nothing.

 

[Dakotah]

There is a danger in wanting to hold people to a certain stereotype. It rejects the individuality of a person and pushes for conformity.

 

[Universe]

I find that the saying 'Be a man' is said simply because people are too lazy to think of something more sensible to say in response to a situation that calls for strength and upstanding magnificence.

The meaning behind that statement, to me, comes through more so than the connection to the word 'man' itself. Although it is very frustrating that a gender/sex is what became the symbol of strength. It should be okay for a man to be weak and not so magnificent. So using that statement forces them to believe they have to be something they aren't, which obviously isn't fair. We're in a day and age where women are proving to be very strong beings just like any man, so if you ask me it's about time this 'power statement' gets an upgrade.

Why not just say, 'you can do it' or 'toughen up'? Perhaps it'll take some time, but I'm sure we can dwindle this statement down until it's rarely if ever used anymore. I'm fairly certain it's just a matter of familiarity. Those can be broken with some time and effort.

 

[Sonata]

We aren't failing our boys. Our boys fail us. Boys need to have some aspect of masculinity. The ones who aren't pushed to be more masculine and dominant are bullied by those who are. It's better for the parents to show their sons that they need to be masculine. This is how the world is, and this is how its been since boys have been boys. Men find enjoyment in seeing who is more masculine, which is why there's bodybuilders and athletes. Heck, men even strive to prove themselves over each other in the workplace. If the drive to be more masculine and dominate over another man wasn't in us then our entire world would come crashing down. Imagine a world where everyone has no cares and don't worry about how they perform. Sounds great doesn't it? Until you realize what that would mean. Men wouldn't strive to outperform one another, thus there would be no advances in our intelligence, we have no reason to advance ourselves except for to overcome others. Men have always been, and will always be the pillar that the families are built on. Single mothers can't raise children to their full potential, and single fathers cant either, but they will do a better job. Not to turn this into a sexist argument, but the man is meant to be the strict side that pushes you to do better, and the mother is supposed to be the softer side that lets you remove your mask. That is what women are supposed to be for our boys and men, and if they stop being that for the men, then they are to blame for the depression and deaths of us. What do you see when you see a woman cry? What do you see when a man cries? When you see a woman cry you think "oh, that's not normal, but it happens." When you see a man cry it breaks you even if you don't know him. Men are the foundation of our society, and without them there to be strong and lift up all of the others then we will have nothing. Be a man. Grow some balls. Don't be a pussy. Be strong and fearless so that others around you can be safe being weak and fearful and take refuge in you. That is our job. That is the job of men. We have our place, and women have theirs.

 

[Universe]

We aren't failing our boys. Our boys fail us. Boys need to have some aspect of masculinity. The ones who aren't pushed to be more masculine and dominant are bullied by those who are. It's better for the parents to show their sons that they need to be masculine. This is how the world is, and this is how its been since boys have been boys. Men find enjoyment in seeing who is more masculine, which is why there's bodybuilders and athletes. Heck, men even strive to prove themselves over each other in the workplace. If the drive to be more masculine and dominate over another man wasn't in us then our entire world would come crashing down. Imagine a world where everyone has no cares and don't worry about how they perform. Sounds great doesn't it? Until you realize what that would mean. Men wouldn't strive to outperform one another, thus there would be no advances in our intelligence, we have no reason to advance ourselves except for to overcome others. Men have always been, and will always be the pillar that the families are built on. Single mothers can't raise children to their full potential, and single fathers cant either, but they will do a better job. Not to turn this into a sexist argument, but the man is meant to be the strict side that pushes you to do better, and the mother is supposed to be the softer side that lets you remove your mask. That is what women are supposed to be for our boys and men, and if they stop being that for the men, then they are to blame for the depression and deaths of us. What do you see when you see a woman cry? What do you see when a man cries? When you see a woman cry you think "oh, that's not normal, but it happens." When you see a man cry it breaks you even if you don't know him. Men are the foundation of our society, and without them there to be strong and lift up all of the others then we will have nothing. Be a man. Grow some balls. Don't be a pussy. Be strong and fearless so that others around you can be safe being weak and fearful and take refuge in you. That is our job. That is the job of men. We have our place, and women have theirs.

This kind of thinking is exactly what pushes our evolutionary process back a few years. You say that we need men to compete with one another in order to advance in life, and yet you contradict yourself by saying women and men are meant to fill specific roles. As though having male or female parts automatically gives one or the other a specific task to uphold. We're in the 21st century, and frankly this kind of thinking just isn't cutting it anymore. Gender roles were established when women didn't have any rights, couldn't fight in the war, and were left out of all important debates. I don't know if you realize, but we are no longer in that time frame.

We don't need gender roles to define us or our place in this world. We're individuals of intensity and complexity that can't be barred down by something as simple as a gender role. What you carry between your legs serves to reproduce and that is all. To say that flesh and organs alone decide what people can and cannot do is the kind of thinking mankind generally abandoned years ago. You know why? Simple.

Because it was idiotic.

Mankind doesn't advance or learn by competition alone. Curiosity does that for us. Men are not required to compete with one another in order to 'advance our species' or 'to exert their manliness'. We are called human beings for a reason. We genetically altered from animals to the point where those things are literally irrelevant to our species. That's the entire point of being called a human I should think.

There are plenty of reasons humanity would seek to better themselves and their intelligence, and honestly? Outperforming another man is not one of them. That's actually a very primal instinct not fit for an intelligent human. We want to learn and grow to better our lives, not to show some other dude up. That literally makes no sense.

 

[Sonata]

This kind of thinking is exactly what pushes our evolutionary process back a few years. You say that we need men to compete with one another in order to advance in life, and yet you contradict yourself by saying women and men are meant to fill specific roles. As though having male or female parts automatically gives one or the other a specific task to uphold. We're in the 21 century, and frankly this kind of thinking just isn't cutting it anymore. Gender roles were established when women didn't have any rights, couldn't fight in the war, and were left out of all important debates. I don't know if you realize, but we are no longer in that time frame.

We don't need gender roles to define us or our place in this world. We're individuals of intensity and complexity that can't be barred down by something as simple as a gender role. What you carry between your legs serves to reproduce and that is all. To say that flesh and organs alone decide what people can and cannot do is the kind of thinking mankind generally abandoned years ago. You know why? Simple.

Because it was idiotic.

Mankind doesn't advance or learn by competition alone. Curiosity does that for us. Men are not required to compete with one another in order to 'advance our species' or 'to exert their manliness'. We are called human beings for a reason. We genetically altered from animals to the point where those things are literally irrelevant to our species. That's the entire point of being called a human I should think.

What you have or don't have between your legs can also get your targeted for acts of violence. If America had a female president I'm pretty sure multiple countries would take us as even more of a joke and would have bombed us already. Women can't fill the shoes of a man completely. Gender roles should have been kept, and if anything should have been done away with it should have been religion. But that's another debate about things that hold back and destroy our society. And trying to outperform other men is what our entire economy and government is based on. A big company owner sees another company start to do good he decides he wants to buy them out because he wants to be dominant and outperform the other company owner. The leader of one company sees another country growing stronger, he wants to make his military stronger so that he can take them out eventually. Everything is based on outdoing each other. I don't see how you can say that it isn't. It is a basic primal instinct but it dictates our world. And it's not just men that end up doing it, women do it too with even more trivial things.

 

[Universe]

What you have or don't have between your legs can also get your targeted for acts of violence. If America had a female president I'm pretty sure multiple countries would take us as even more of a joke and would have bombed us already. Women can't fill the shoes of a man completely. Gender roles should have been kept, and if anything should have been done away with it should have been religion. But that's another debate about things that hold back and destroy our society. And trying to outperform other men is what our entire economy and government is based on. A big company owner sees another company start to do good he decides he wants to buy them out because he wants to be dominant and outperform the other company owner. The leader of one company sees another country growing stronger, he wants to make his military stronger so that he can take them out eventually. Everything is based on outdoing each other. I don't see how you can say that it isn't. It is a basic primal instinct but it dictates our world. And it's not just men that end up doing it, women do it too with even more trivial things.

Not all of these competing companies are owned by men, for one thing. It's a well-known fact that the strong survive and that if you don't beat the competition you might lose entirely. But to go so far as to say we need all of our men to be masculine and to uphold our sense of worth and strength is illogical. Humans are not pack animals, and we are far from being primal. We are a social species full of individuals who can think for themselves ; that's why we're human. Gender roles are being shaken up in the modern world because they make no sense, and we don't need a biological set to define what we can and cannot do.

Men should be permitted to be weak if they want to be weak. That's up to them.

 

[Oryx]

Imagine a world where everyone has no cares and don't worry about how they perform. Sounds great doesn't it? Until you realize what that would mean. Men wouldn't strive to outperform one another, thus there would be no advances in our intelligence, we have no reason to advance ourselves except for to overcome others.

Progress for the sake of progress is incredibly common. In fact, putting together the intellect of many people is often more effective than those people each working on their own, hiding their progress from each other out of a competitive spirit. This is actually a flaw of masculinity, where some traditional femininity would be helpful - traditional femininity emphasizes teamwork, collaboration, and success for all. We advance ourselves because we want to advance. We advance medicine to cure people. We advance technology to communicate or work or even just to see what we can make. There are plenty of reasons to create other than competition; I'm an example of that. I'm not competitive at all and avoid all competition, and yet I create. Why? Because I want to. Edit: I want to clarify that those "we" statements at the end are not meant to refer to women as a gender, but the human race and reasons we move forward other than competition. I am not into the sexist putting men and women into specific boxes thing.

Men have always been, and will always be the pillar that the families are built on. Single mothers can't raise children to their full potential, and single fathers cant either, but they will do a better job.

Citation needed. Where's your proof of this, other than claiming that stereotypes of men and women are what they are "meant to be"? That's far from proof.

That is what women are supposed to be for our boys and men, and if they stop being that for the men, then they are to blame for the depression and deaths of us.

This is sexist.

Be a man. Grow some balls. Don't be a pussy.

Balls are soft, sensitive, and when barely touched make men feel so much pain that they get nauseous. Vaginas are torn just to be able to have sex and are regularly stretched and strained, can birth an entire child, and have complex muscle structures. When you're picking between the two, the stronger one here definitely isn't the set of balls. If I grew some balls, I would be literally making myself weaker. Sorry!

 

[Vix Axiom]

Progress for the sake of progress is incredibly common. In fact, putting together the intellect of many people is often more effective than those people each working on their own, hiding their progress from each other out of a competitive spirit. This is actually a flaw of masculinity, where some traditional femininity would be helpful - traditional femininity emphasizes teamwork, collaboration, and success for all. We advance ourselves because we want to advance. We advance medicine to cure people. We advance technology to communicate or work or even just to see what we can make. There are plenty of reasons to create other than competition; I'm an example of that. I'm not competitive at all and avoid all competition, and yet I create. Why? Because I want to. Edit: I want to clarify that those "we" statements at the end are not meant to refer to women as a gender, but the human race and reasons we move forward other than competition. I am not into the sexist putting men and women into specific boxes thing.

Traditional feminism doesn't exist. Feminism has always been the same and has never changed. It's methods have. From public speaking to riots to modern-day social media to which women's voices are now behind a few inches of computer screen.

Feminism has always about the cornerstone belief that women are being oppressed and that men are the oppressors. How do you think this is going to turn out?

-cough-tumblr-coughcough-

Citation needed. Where's your proof of this, other than claiming that stereotypes of men and women are what they are "meant to be"? That's far from proof.

See: The Roman Empire.

Also, it fell because man became weak and could not lead it into the ages, no thanks to the corruptible senators that could not lead it into another Golden Age.

This is sexist.

Sexism is as sexism does.

Balls are soft, sensitive, and when barely touched make men feel so much pain that they get nauseous. Vaginas are torn just to be able to have sex and are regularly stretched and strained, can birth an entire child, and have complex muscle structures. When you're picking between the two, the stronger one here definitely isn't the set of balls. If I grew some balls, I would be literally making myself weaker. Sorry!

This was... ehm... oddly specific and I don't think it really adds to the argument you're trying to make here. Sardony makes your argument more awkward and is easily called out by another individual as it is considered to be the last resort and also unintelligent to use. Also see: ad hominem, strawman, non sequitur..... et cetera and ad nauseum.

 

[twocows]

As I've said before, I consider myself an egalitarian. I believe men and women are not mentally distinct in important ways, I think that many of the same opportunities should be available to both, and I think that both should be treated fairly and mostly equally. I tend to focus on men's issues, as our issues tend to be overlooked or even outright denied. But I would like to respond to some of this.

Traditional feminism doesn't exist. Feminism has always been the same and has never changed. It's methods have. From public speaking to riots to modern-day social media to which women's voices are now behind a few inches of computer screen.

Feminism has always about the cornerstone belief that women are being oppressed and that men are the oppressors. How do you think this is going to turn out?

That's not true. The core belief of feminism is that women are treated unfairly. There are many different kinds of feminism, most arising from differences in opinion on cause and solution, as well as what constitutes fair treatment.

See: The Roman Empire.

The argument was that "men have always been and will always be the focal point of the family." I don't know if families in the Roman Empire were entirely based around the men, but if so, I don't think that one instance is sufficient to support the claim that "men have always been the focal point of the family," and it is entirely irrelevant to the claim that "men will always be the focal point of the family."

I do think that children of single-parent families (male or female) miss out on a very important part of their development, but I think it's unfair to place undue emphasis on the man's traditional role or current role. Both parents were historically important, and both parents are currently important, even with the changes in gender responsibilities and expectations currently going on. Arguing exactly how much is a pointless effort, since that would vary from family to family.

Sexism is as sexism does.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

The original statement was "That is what women are supposed to be for our boys and men, and if they stop being that for the men, then they are to blame for the depression and deaths of us." I take issue with this in two ways.

First, who supposes that women must fulfill this role? On whose authority must women raise men up out of the weakness you are suggesting we have that would lead to our depression and death? We humans are (or should be) our own masters: our designs should be our own. Women are not obligated to raise men up out of this weakness you suggest we have, even if we do have it.

Which leads me to my second problem. What makes you think men are so weak that we would fall into depression and die without women to support us? Most people (men and women) do crave companionship, this is true, and a prolonged lack of it can sometimes lead to depression and, in rare cases, death. But the qualifiers are important: this is not always the case, and when it is, the extent varies. Many people get by fine on their own. I've been single for about 95% of my life and I'm not depressed or dying. I would probably be happier if I wasn't single, but that's neither here nor there, and it's my own problem to deal with, anyway. Regardless, people (including men) are usually stronger than you give us credit for. If there is something wrong in our life, we are usually able to either fix it or cope with it and not allow it to drastically effect our mental state and outlook.

Now, some people would fall into depression and some would even die. That's unfortunate, but that problem originates from the inside, not the outside. Others (including a significant other) can help in situations like that, but we are not responsible for the mental state of anyone except ourselves, our children, and, if we are doctors, our patients.

 

[Vix Axiom]

From what I've seen, there are two types of feminists. There are loud feminists and quiet feminists.

Which leads me to my second problem. 1.What makes you think men are so weak that we would fall into depression and die without women to support us? 2. Most people (men and women) do crave companionship, this is true, and a prolonged lack of it can sometimes lead to depression and, in rare cases, death. But the qualifiers are important: this is not always the case, and when it is, the extent varies. Many people get by fine on their own. I've been single for about 95% of my life and I'm not depressed or dying. I would probably be happier if I wasn't single, but that's neither here nor there, and it's my own problem to deal with, anyway. 3. Regardless, people (including men) are usually stronger than you give us credit for. 4. If there is something wrong in our life, we are usually able to either fix it or cope with it and not allow it to drastically effect our mental state and outlook.

1. I didn't say that. If what you thought I said was against men, you're wrong. It was against the Roman Senate itself due to individual fault. By "man" I meant mankind as a whole collapsed and culture failed for over a few hundred years before it revived itself again.
2. That's individual weakness, not collective weakness that makes people kill themselves.
3. If anything I'm strictly against feminism. It's mostly boohooing over problems that don't exist outside of name-calling. The only alleged oppression that comes out of it is s--t shaming or rape jokes. Racism is more serious than the whole sexism thing, at least a problem actually exists. I've never heard of a hate crime that ever went viral propagating against women because they are women.
4. Except we still have people who commit suicide everyday, over what? Another person that legitimately had no feelings for them? This goes both ways, and has no specific grouping within it. People as individuals are weak because they refuse to see the world as larger than it appears to them and believe there isn't a life for them worth living.

A statistic to consider, "According to a 2010 study by the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of married couple families living in poverty was 6.2%. For single-parent households in that same year, the poverty rate was 27.3%; for single mother households, the poverty rate was 29.9%."

Infer what you will.