Were men more manly back in the day because they spent more time with their fathers?

[El Payaso]

As opposed to the single mother gynocentric culture of today which produces more beta men to subjugate and feed today's femcentric culture.

 

[Desdinova]

Spending time with their fathers may be part of it, but I think it's more the example that the father set for the boy. If he displayed responsibility, strength and leadership and his mother showed her support on how a man's supposed to behave, that will no doubt have a huge influence on him. It will give him the desire to learn from his father. He also takes his cues on how to interact with women from his father. If it's the mother who wears the pants in the house, the boy will learn to be in subjection to women.

Nowadays, single moms are busy teaching boys how to "treat women right". In other words, they want the boys to learn how women want to be treated by other women, NOT by men.

Women who lack a father figure in their lives do not learn how to play a feminine roll in a relationship. They learn to bury their natural desire to be nurturing and supportive and instead learn to be an "independent, strong woman". Combine this with the man being feminine and needy, and you've got a huge disconnect when it comes to male & female roles in a relationship.

 

[MOTU]

Yes, and their uncles and brothers as they hunted and worked the family land or business. In No More Mr Nice Guy Glover argues that men started to become less manly when they began being raised by women all the way through adolescence.

 

[Alpheta]

It really and truly depends on the up bringing in my opinion.

A boy brought up by a strong father is more likely to adopt the fathers strong manly chareteristics.However if he is brought up by a weak father who is whipped and doesnt wear the pants in the relationship then he will most likely end up less manly and have feminine type charateristics.

I have a puffy uncle who chills with his 3 sisters 24/7 and has women like interests. Everyone calls him aunty. Lo and behold he has a son who is 4 years old and is obsessed with princesses and ponies. The kid is feminine just like his father.

Its sad but true.

 

[piranha45]

First, IMO this is not a femcentric culture; its a betacentric culture. I say this because betas are the cause of rise in females in the sociopolitical scene.

All through history, man was willing to KILL; to TORTURE and ENSLAVE all those who stood against him.

Man as a gender could retake absolute power in all Western culture overnight, if every husband and father simply REGAINED SOME FORTITUDE, stood up and informed the women under their stead that if they did not submit in full they would be promptly killed.

A couple shrews would turn the tables on their men (some beta throats slashed in the night, sure) but overall in 1 night Western man would resume absolute control of the sociopolitical scene, because women as a whole HAVE NO CAPACITY FOR PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.

Western man simply lacks the fortitude needed to perform this. He has become a complacent, cowardly slob over the last 300 years in history. He has freed the slaves AND the women. The abolition of slavery over the last 300 years is just as noteworthy as the empowerment of women.


That is why I say this is a betacentric culture.




NOW, with that out of the way, the question remains WHY and HOW did Western man become so mentally WEAK?!

There's an obvious correlation with the rise in technology over the past 300 years. Note that slavery, female subjugation, and technology have all been a 300-year thing.

Unfortunately, I don't know how this is. But it seems like the only viable explanation. Regardless, it could be overturned in a night, if the majority of the betas in Western countries would raise their fists and get ruthless.


The Nazis and the Japanese of WW2 were the last world powers to truly have a strong patriarchy in place. They were efficient and methodical. They experimented on humans. They exterminated those they deemed weak and detrimental.

Sadly, as a testament to how weak and cowardly Western culture has become, we're indoctrinated to think they were the pinnacle of evil...

The only strong patriarchal systems remaining to my knowledge are the African warlords and ISIS. Even the big Islamic countries and China are becoming increasingly beta-ized through foul Western influence.

What do all historical patriarchal systems have in common? The FORTITUDE needed to set aside man's natural tendency towards sociability. The will to KILL, TORTURE, and ENSLAVE. The resolve needed to be RUTHLESS and EFFICIENT.

The very values modern Western culture despises.


To get at your suggestion, is it due to lack of fatherly time? Maybe there HAS been a trend over the last 300 years regarding a lack of father-son bonding... This doesn't seem to be well-recorded though. It certainly doesn't sound like something historians would think to document. I don't know.

 

[Dryden]

I want to say that you (Piranha45) have something wrong about that. It is more complex than that.

Just think of how in the past it was extremely hard to meet women.

Sex was abolished even more than it is today.

You can read a book about (or from) the European culture of the 20's of the 20th century. It is not long ago, and men and women were separated in schools.

Men trembled on their knees when they met a woman. Some religiously minded men (and there were many) (especially of more sophicaticated culture) had deep conflict within themselves about the female.

Of course the roughnecks and pirates and illiterates had less of that. Less rules, less civilization, more fun.

Parental authority was VERY strict and especially the father was often a figure who took out the whip, cut the meat at sundays, and was never seen around.

It was not someone you could bond with as a boy.

So I think you have a bit of a skewed image of how great it was in the past. The grasp of religion was much much stronger (as it is still in some cultures like those of more eastern / southern European cultures, but at the same time even that must be much less than the past). And religion forbids sex. Seriously, and easily, and simply.

Religion puts sex within the confines of an authorized, credited relationship. As sex is denied, men rule the public sphere and women rule the private sphere.

Because of the scarcity argument to monogamy, since a man or male cannot go to any other woman to have sex, the woman gains ultimate power over him. At the same time, because woman are or were generally expulsed from the working, economical, political, religious sphere, men gained ultimate power over her.

So now you have two people, both of which are incessantly and 'constructively' constrained. Males control females with economic power and physical force. Women control men by closing their legs and putting up demands for opening them.

These demands coincided with her interests in gaining more power over men as the power was denied them.

So men were not strong. They were betas. Except in Italy of course ;-D.

I recently had an Italian guy here. He just told everyone "I need to fvck". It was an urgent need for him and not one he was ashamed about. A Dutch person would NEVER say that. First of all, he would not think himself confident and capable of getting any when the need arose. This guy was confident.

He also had an extremely strong love for his mother. To an Italian, the mother is everything. He was also not afraid to show his anger. He said he was angry enough to smack the windows if something didn't happen. People took him seriously. He gained more respect than any Dutch person would have.

 

[piranha45]

Weren't the women under the absolute control of their fathers, until relinquished to a suitor, though? I thought women had very little say in whom they were given to.

The father and suitor worked out an arrangement, and the father actually had to pay out a dowry to ensure his daughter was treated comfortably.

I figured a woman had little say in who was fvcking her and when it would happen. It's only been in recent times that husband-wife rape has been made illegal, I thought.

And what about pre-Christian era? Perhaps, if you are right, female empowerment merely started 2000 years ago, as opposed to 300 years ago.

If I'm mistaken in all this please do inform. I appreciate the knowledge you've put forth so far.

 

[RangerMIke]

3rd wave feminism and the fact that men, by and large, have just surrendered to it.

It started in the 70s in the US when Ford became President and it's been downhill ever since. Things are starting to turn around as Feminism is clearly not the solution to social problems because in spite of what the feminists tell women, deep down women know that is not what they want and will make them happy.

 

[Dryden]

Weren't the women under the absolute control of their fathers, until relinquished to a suitor, though? I thought women had very little say in whom they were given to.

The father and suitor worked out an arrangement, and the father actually had to pay out a dowry to ensure his daughter was treated comfortably.

I figured a woman had little say in who was fvcking her and when it would happen. It's only been in recent times that husband-wife rape has been made illegal, I thought.

And what about pre-Christian era? Perhaps, if you are right, female empowerment merely started 2000 years ago, as opposed to 300 years ago.

If I'm mistaken in all this please do inform. I appreciate the knowledge you've put forth so far.

Since having sex with someone when people know about it puts you in the public sphere, men rule that sphere, and fathers rule that sphere, and so once the sex is known in public, men will control her. It is men who rule the public sphere in a patriarchal society. It is women who rule the public sphere in a matriarchal society. It is men who rule the private sphere in a matriarchal society. Although there is not good consistent evidence about it (the ... pivotal book "The Chalic and the Blade" argues not or argues against the idea that a real/true matriarchal society has existed (I haven't read it yet but it is coming my way, perhaps next weekend)) there are some sources that indicated that contrary to popular belief, patriarchy hasn't existed since the damn of men/women/humans. It is said, and spiritual lore/knowledge also holds that we are currently in an area still dominated by the 3rd chakra which is a male chakra of fire and force.

Preceding that has been a 2nd chakra era which was ruled by the emotions. I believe the entire era leading up to the Roman area was a Celtic are throughout Europe (at least) in which matriarchal elements have been interspersed into current popular lore, least of which is not the idea of having much "fertility" symbolism in e.g. Druidic culture of the Ireland and British isles. Scarcely anyone ever talks about the Celtic era and most people who study history or archeology become infatuated by Roman and Greek cultures, but I haven't heard anyone talk about Celtic cultures yet.

Not even a friend who is a deep interested archeologist in many cultures. Contrary to what anyone knows, or, more likely, people just don't know it, the Celtic languages were prevalent throughout ALL of Europe before the Romans arrived. It was VERY widespread and now we only have "Asterix and Obelix" in our popular mind to account for it.

You know from deep experience that to have sex with a woman is to let no one know about it, or as few people as possible, generally (unless you are well established in your male or masculine powers) because as long as it is hidden, you are in control. As soon as it is visible, men of authority in her life will get to be in control, which means she will close her legs.

So you can see straight down that her power in closing her legs to you (which seems to us as an aspect of female control) is actually ALSO a male control thing that will ensure that she lives a hellish life if she does it too much.

I will repeat again: Don't tell anyone how good you are doing too loudly, because jealousy is a light sleeper. Men of power (authoritative power in our structures of control) will seek to take her away from you if it is not happening within a relationship they are sanctioning.

 

[Dryden]

What I'm saying really is that history has not changed. We are still living in the era of 2000 years ago. There is some weird time anomaly that is going on. There was a film about it, part of it referenced it (Waking Life) by Richard Linklater. We are not really living in the 'current era' because the era still hasn't changed yet. We are moving to a 4th chakra era now, which is called Aquarius. But it seems to be obstructed and frustrated currently, at least in my life that .... wait. More on that later I guess. I am witnessing the butterfly/caterpillar transformation effect, that is all. It is still a symbol of the transformation.

The 4th era is only about 20% arrived at and fixed in our holographic matrices yet.

Feminism is like almost a counterforce and WE my friends are the proponents, the parts of which are healthy at least in our thinking here on this site, we are harbingers of a part or an important part of the new era, from the male perspective and dimension.

Feminism is really seeking to destroy patriarchy by trying to revert to matriarchy in an attempt to thwart men from becoming their 'owners' who can convert them to real sex. Feminists abhor male dominance (the real way, the actual real thing) because they abhor female submission, and female submission should not be seen as female inferiority.

Women never submitted in the past. All of us have submitted to structures of control, men as much as women. Just the father (that was here, in that other thread) who will not ever sleep with a friend of his daughter's, you think that is not a contraint? You think men are less constrained than women?

Women submitted to structures of control and deviousness and corruption just as men did. But women never submitted to men, and men never dominated women. You can say the male principle has dominated the female principle, and subjugated it, and this is true. The male principle has run rampant in our societies. [Taken from a book "The Light Shall Set You Free" by Milanovich and McCune)]. But here is the clue.

Women have let the male principle rule their lives as well.

A woman who objects to submission or service objects to femininity. Listening, being obedient, being 'servive' and pleasing a man are qualities that have been denied. I don't know about pleasing men. I just know that female qualities are not valued. Feminism doesn't value them. Feminism doesn't value femininity, how about that?.

Feminism abhors femininity and values just masculinity, and tries to turn women into men. It tries to raise WOMEN (actual, physical objects) into the statuses and positions that men have taken for centuries. But ours is a male society, so they are just trying to turn women into men who can then take on the same positions of power as men did. So they are denying their own womanhood, and they are denying the female values and qualities. Feminism is not about femininity, but only about women.

 

[Dryden]

And I will say that femininity and masculinity are not opposites or enemies but complements.

A woman can become an enemy of a man, but a "femininity" cannot become the enemy of a "masculinity" because they are the same thing but different aspects of it.

 

[Alexandar]

Unfortunately, I don't know how this is. . I don't know.

these are the only sensible things you said. and you are dead right on that.

you are also an idiot, borderline retarded, and ignorant beyond comprehension.

and did you seriously pedastalize nazism? you should be put in a gas chamber after being tortured for a few weeks. i assure you after that, you will eat your ignorant words like a f a g g o t eats d i c k.

please dont talk about topics you are clueless about. which probably means, dont talk. ever.

If I'm mistaken in all this please do inform.

done.

phucking sad

And I will say that femininity and masculinity are not opposites or enemies but complements.

A woman can become an enemy of a man, but a "femininity" cannot become the enemy of a "masculinity" because they are the same thing but different aspects of it.

3rd wave feminism and the fact that men, by and large, have just surrendered to it.

It started in the 70s in the US when Ford became President and it's been downhill ever since. Things are starting to turn around as Feminism is clearly not the solution to social problems because in spite of what the feminists tell women, deep down women know that is not what they want and will make them happy.

fortunately, these guys know what's up. well said.

edit. dryden: I just read your two constructive posts in response to piranha's, as opposed to my destructive one here (cant help it, that degree of stupidity drives me crazy) . And I just have to say, Wow. My mind is blown. Im saving all of what you said and re reading it.

What you discussed is so disgustingly accurate and enlightening that Im speechless. A lot of it is even new knowledge to me. And its even more valuable because of the way you are literally coming up with a lot of it on the spot and discovering new ways to explain and word it. Priceless.

I would love to discuss sometime, will pm you. Thank you for posting that.

 

[piranha45]

Some bleeding liberal had to get his impassioned-but-generic rage post out of the way. Hope he feels better now.

I've always agreed that femininity and masculinity are complements, and my initial post reflects that; a huge dose of masculinity (cold logic and systematic violence) will induce women to act more feminine.

Women are currently behaving in masculine fashion as a response to men behaving in feminine fashion (betas).

The fem movement as I can tell picked up in western culture with Abigail Adams, escalated with Susan B Anthony and her dual blacks+women position, progressed into women's right to vote in the 1920s, etc. Men did little to suppress it, indicating they were becoming increasingly beta/feminine. The mere fact that the movement sprouted up in the first place indicates men were inexplicably becoming more beta in the 1700s.

And this is where the OP's initial question gives rise.

My proposed solution is we need to behave more similar to the "badguys" of history, the nazis, the mongols, the vikings, the huns. Consider the masculinity of a viking raider, who thought it natural to seek out and kill a foreign man, loot his belongings, and enslave his wife and children. Why did we stop doing that? It seemed to work out well. Our culture has done a 180 from that perspective, and it doesn't seem sensible to me.

 

[piranha45]

Perhaps my view is too centered around the small-but-prominent warrior groups, and I just haven't read up enough on what things were like for the common farmer and small businessman. This is where Dryden offers insight. I can't relate to the common farmer and small businessman though.

I argue we need behave as the small warrior groups did. When we stop behaving in that manner, when we become farmers and tradesmen, we become submissive. The capacity to do think rationally and perform methodical violence to achieve our goals is the heart of masculinity, from my perspective.

Warriors are and probably always have been a niche group, though. If it were not for other classes/castes of men, we'd have no infrastructure to support technological growth. But if we get too bent on technological growth and other peaceful activities, we become too submissive.

The "badguys" of history seemed to have more focus on warrior culture.

El Payaso I suppose your initial question -- "Were men more manly back in the day because...?" has been found to be loaded with an incorrect assumption... Men as a whole weren't more manly back in the day. We focus too much on the warrior niches of times past and incorrectly assume that's how most men were.

 

[Alexandar]

Perhaps my view is too centered around the small-but-prominent warrior groups, and I just haven't read up enough on what things were like for the common farmer and small businessman. This is where Dryden offers insight. I can't relate to the common farmer and small businessman though.

I argue we need behave as the small warrior groups did. When we stop behaving in that manner, when we become farmers and tradesmen, we become submissive. The capacity to do think rationally and perform methodical violence to achieve our goals is the heart of masculinity, from my perspective.

Or perhaps you are an immature child who still thinks killing people is cool. You really cant fathom a more cultured way to take back our masculinity? Like i said, your degree of ignorance and plain utter stupidity makes me sick. Especially living in a modern world where you have the benefit of countless philosophers' intellectual works, and endless information. How can you say thats the heart of masculinity? Do you have any idea how delusional that statement is? Thats the heart of being a true p u s s y, the opposite of masculinity. You are not a teenager anymore. You are not even a twenty something. Thats phucking pathetic, bro. Grow up.

 

[piranha45]

Alexandar's opinion is bitterly opposed to mine, and he really needs to make sure everyone knows it.

You're far and away from being the first bleeding liberal that's spazzed out on me, killer. I've heard it all, discussed it all, dozens of times over the past 10 years. Yes, I disagree with your perspective. Move on.

 

[WanderingMan]

Spending time with their fathers may be part of it, but I think it's more the example that the father set for the boy. If he displayed responsibility, strength and leadership and his mother showed her support on how a man's supposed to behave, that will no doubt have a huge influence on him. It will give him the desire to learn from his father. He also takes his cues on how to interact with women from his father. If it's the mother who wears the pants in the house, the boy will learn to be in subjection to women.

Nowadays, single moms are busy teaching boys how to "treat women right". In other words, they want the boys to learn how women want to be treated by other women, NOT by men.

Women who lack a father figure in their lives do not learn how to play a feminine roll in a relationship. They learn to bury their natural desire to be nurturing and supportive and instead learn to be an "independent, strong woman". Combine this with the man being feminine and needy, and you've got a huge disconnect when it comes to male & female roles in a relationship.

I agree with this. Men oftentimes had to go fight and die in wars and battles. Thus, the fathers weren't always able to directly spend time with the kids, but, by going off to fight for whatever reason - their homeland - their beliefs, they were at least able to set an example for their children.

 

[piranha45]

Warfare HAS become softer for Western man.

If we were serious about stopping Russia, Iran, ISIS, whatever... We'd be flooding those countries with mass ground invasions like we did in WW2.

Instead we're flying RC planes overhead dropping missile pinpricks, because heaven forbid one of our own people die. And oh, if it we DARE cause civilian casualties....!!!

That's a testament to how soft we are as a people...



Straining out raw violence and cold logic--the traits of masculinity-- in favor of emotional vindication.

 

[Alexandar]

piranha it's really cute how you're trying to make it out as if someone is simply disagreeing with your opinion hahaha

that's not it, kid. you are blatantly wrong. and very confused.

once again, let me ask you, where did you learn that raw violence is a trait of masculinity? its the opposite. its a trait of immaturity. you are delusional my friend. you live in a fairy world like most women and beta men do. you do not have an arguable or sensible opinion. read a phucking book?

it really was so masculine and powerful of. hitler to kill all those people right? to round them up like sheep and chuck them into stoves. that really relates to ancient warriors fighting on the battlefield, huh?

in the same sense, its pathetic you need to threaten a woman with murder to control her. because i do it with ONE look. who is the p u s s y? who is the beta?

the only time a Real masculine man uses raw violence is against beta f a g g o t t s like you, hitler, or serial killers, who are weak human beings that despise themselves and know only one way to deal with their self loathing, by projecting it onto others through meaningless violence.

 

[Trump]

As opposed to the single mother gynocentric culture of today which produces more beta men to subjugate and feed today's femcentric culture.

I think its more culture, system, media, and technology than fathers. The system/media loves people who follow the status quo and if they don't bend to the female's will at all times, they will get crushed.

Even if you grew up with strong, tough, take no prisoners type of father, you can't beat the system. That's why you see a lot of European athletes come to North America with their wife, and then quickly get arrested when they lay a hand on her. Different rules, different system, protect the innocent victim at all costs.