The Demise Of Guys The End Of Men And Where Have All The Good Men Gone?

[Questing Beast]

I think our definitions must differ quite a lot. I don't consider natural inclinations, to be less than I feel I ought to be, as "wicked", especially if I use self control and deny myself the gratification of "wicked" natural inclinations. Also, I have a much less stringent category of "wicked" inclinations than I used to when young. I think that religion errs on the side of safety in its proscriptions of "wickedness", fearing that less onerous strictures against natural inclinations of all kinds will result in flabby spirituality and even burgeoning carnality, etc. There is some truth to that concern, but I don't think that the majority of men or women will become reckless hedonists if they decide that they believe most of what religion proscribes is actually "more like guidelines" and nothing to do with forbidden things. My yardstick to measure the "wickedness factor" is: "If it doesn't hurt you or anyone else, i.e. is not unhealthy or unjust, then there is nothing inherently wicked/evil about it, proceed with caution!" ...

Edited June 5, 2013 by Questing Beast

[The Nehor]

Part of me thinks it is better to be proactively wicked then to be insipidly not wicked through inaction without some dedication to righteousness. With the former you have more to work with. Disclaimer: Not saying that anyone here is insipidly wicked.

[Questing Beast]

Insipid is like "lukewarm" is it not? An insipid personality does not begin to know anything about themselves through experience, because they refuse experience, they flee it for a nice beach where they can bury their head in the sand. Jesus Christ at least wants a person to be "hot or cold", i.e. devoted to something passionately, so that by extreme action they can determine the good from the evil. Being good is only possible to a knowing person, not an innocent and ignorant person. The atonement (love and mercy of God) will rescue anyone who is devoted, committed and proactive. It really has no efficacy with a person who doesn't even notice the atonement (love and mercy of God). It's as if such a person is on "low" on a back burner somewhere. Meanwhile, the universe clicks on by....

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited July 21, 2013 by Tacenda

[Questing Beast]

What an odd thing to post on this thread. "The demise of Travis Alexander" is not really the same as the "demise of guys" problem....

[Tacenda]

What an odd thing to post on this thread. "The demise of Travis Alexander" is not really the same as the "demise of guys" problem....

I'll delete, but did see a demonstration of a

good guy and his demise.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Tacenda

[Erin15]

I think the OP makes some really good points. I have made similar observations.

What I find particularly unfair is the way that we (by we I mean mainstream American gentiles) help girls but blame boys.

For fifty years now we have spent billions and billions of dollars trying to help girls acheive more academically and in the workplace. We have restructured our educational system to teach the way girls perfer to learn, all in the name of fairness.

And, now that girls are outpreforming the boys, what do we have for the boys? Nothing but blame and shame. Not one penny of those billions of dollars is being diverted to help the boys, we offer them nothing but our criticism.

Is it any wonder so many young men are simply throwing up their arms and saying "screw you" to a society that offers them nothing but blame? No, it is not.

[Questing Beast]

Well said. Now "we", society, need to balance the scales and cease forthwith to engage in any sort of fatuous, damaging blame games. Let's start by boycotting the Medía every time "She" uses blame game tactics, or makes fun of either gender by using stereotypical characterizations. I don't have any interest in tar brushing either gender for any reason.

What I would love to see is an education system that caters to the individual, that way any boy or girl would be able to learn at any age according to their best interests. They would focus on what has arrested their first attention, learn enough about it to move on, and then focus on the next thing. We are so addicted to the concept of conformity! We angst over whether everyone measures within the acceptable range on generic tests. Those individuals that fall outside the tests are either "prodigies" or "failures", and neither is true only asserted because of test scores.

Children, especially boys, don't learn how to read and write as early as our education system insists that they learn it. If we put this off for a few years, in those cases where a boy or girl shows little or no aptitude for reading and writing, and let them concentrate on other things they are interested in, then two things would happen: their attitude toward learning would become positive and interested, and they would catch up in the reading and writing skills later. It is about the maturing brain, which is different for everybody. But no, we must have conformity, and as noted, girls do well in the established school environment and many boys squirm and daydream and "fail", or come up far short of the girls anyway. It doesn't have to be like this....

Edited July 22, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

What did you expect with our gender stereotyping? There are still plenty of good jobs out there for men, but we cannot go on bashing intellectuals and geeks. Those kids with their heads stuck in books and fiddling with computers are the ones that nail the good jobs and can compete with the women, but if you raise your boy to be a football star or basketball star don't expect that to translate into being able to provide for his family in the future. Have six boys, all have or will have good careers. None played any sport except track and cross country, all fiddled with computers and were involved with music. This is no longer a physical labor world.

[Questing Beast]

I disagree. Many "boys" are not interested in 'puters and sitting with their noses stuck to a screen or in a book "all day". Those men will fail to fit in and will always feel out of place. There will always be a percentage of them that can't stand that kind of work. Are they to be unhappy for their entire lives? or will there by some effort to make physical type jobs available? We are all different. It would be ideal if everyone could work at what feels fulfilling to them. The problem is that capitalism does not care about fulfillment, only quotas and profit. People must add in the human ingredient, i.e. make capitalism conform to human needs. We can do it, but only if we determine to be humane about our work environments above the raw considerations of soulless profit....

[The Nehor]

I disagree. Many "boys" are not interested in 'puters and sitting with their noses stuck to a screen or in a book "all day". Those men will fail to fit in and will always feel out of place. There will always be a percentage of them that can't stand that kind of work. Are they to be unhappy for their entire lives? or will there by some effort to make physical type jobs available? We are all different. It would be ideal if everyone could work at what feels fulfilling to them. The problem is that capitalism does not care about fulfillment, only quotas and profit. People must add in the human ingredient, i.e. make capitalism conform to human needs. We can do it, but only if we determine to be humane about our work environments above the raw considerations of soulless profit....

The truth is there are oodles of physically active jobs out there unfilled right now. The quick way to money right now is to learn a trade not get a degree.

The Baby Boomer generation lionized degrees and office work as the way to success and wealth and the parents of the rising generation told their kids they had to go to college to be successful. Now they come out of school in debt and many degrees have no jobs waiting.

[Stone holm]

I disagree. Many "boys" are not interested in 'puters and sitting with their noses stuck to a screen or in a book "all day". Those men will fail to fit in and will always feel out of place. There will always be a percentage of them that can't stand that kind of work. Are they to be unhappy for their entire lives? or will there by some effort to make physical type jobs available? We are all different. It would be ideal if everyone could work at what feels fulfilling to them. The problem is that capitalism does not care about fulfillment, only quotas and profit. People must add in the human ingredient, i.e. make capitalism conform to human needs. We can do it, but only if we determine to be humane about our work environments above the raw considerations of soulless profit....

There are also many girls who are not interested in computers or sitting with their noses stuck to a screen or in a book "all day" -- the only reason why there appears to be be lopsidedness right now is that because of the gender stereotyping girls are more likely to do so. That is changing, in Vermont most of the new young farmers are....young women...

[Questing Beast]

Interesting situation. And just because more "girls" are likely to conform, the guys get a lopsided lambasting by Medía, who is a *beotch* to work for too....

Edited July 29, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

Interesting situation. And just because more "girls" are likely to conform, the guys get a lopsided lambasting by Medía, who is a *beotch* to work for too....

No because the girls are conditioned by our gender norms to be more likely to conform, then they get lambasted not only by the Media, but by the Prophet for not going to college and getting advanced degrees....while other GAs denounce intellectualism....

[Erin15]

The more I think about it, the more I realize that men (by men I mean mainstream american gentiles, not LDS men) who are avoiding marriage are not acting immature, they are reacting rationally.

The way the family court laws are currently structured, a wife can, at any time and without any reason, take a man's house and children away from him, and put him in a state of poverty and servitude for the rest of his life.

Consider that 60% of all marriages end in divorce, and 80% of those divorces are filed by women.

Is it rational for a man to enter into such an inheriantly dangerous and disequal contract? I've known people addicted to gambling, and even they wouldn't touch a game with such absurd odds stacked against them.

Men are avoiding marriage not because they are immature, but because marriage is a terrible deal for them. I know it is possible to get a prenup, but any judge can toss out a prenup, and in fact prenups are tossed out 70% of the time.

And, again, what is the response? Do we restructure the laws to be equitable? Do we prosecute women who file blatantly false charges of abuse and neglect against their husbands just to get a better deal in the divorce?

No, all we do is blame and shame men. We call them man-children and losers and pigs. We tell them to put down the video games and criticise them for not opting into a system and contract that is completely at odds with their own self-interest.

Is it any wonder so many young men are simply throwing up their arms and saying "screw you" to a society that offers them nothing but blame? No, it is not.

This is no longer a physical labor world.

I disagree. The value of a degree has been dropping fast over the last 20 years, while the price of a degree has quintupled.

We have been taught to thumb our noses at plumbers, welders, electricians, auto mechanics, and the like, but those jobs pay very well, especially when you consider that it costs only a few thousand dollars to become certified in a trade skill (that cannot be outsourced) while a traditional degree costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and often has zero market value.

No because the girls are conditioned by our gender norms to be more likely to conform, then they get lambasted not only by the Media, but by the Prophet for not going to college and getting advanced degrees....while other GAs denounce intellectualism....

As a woman, I will tell you right now that most women prefer conformity as a life success strategy because of our natural innate femininity, not because we are conditioned by society. I know this is veering off topic into nature vs. nurture debate, but if I had to put a percentage onto it, I'd say we women are the way we are 75% because of nature, 25% because of nurture.

....while other GAs denounce intellectualism....

And every year older I get, the more I see the wisdom in it. The priorities, focus, methods, and attitudes of intellectualism seem at times almost tailor-made to render a person immune to the whispers of the spirit.

[Questing Beast]

The more I think about it, the more I realize that men (by men I mean mainstream american gentiles, not LDS men) who are avoiding marriage are not acting immature, they are reacting rationally.

The way the family court laws are currently structured, a wife can, at any time and without any reason, take a man's house and children away from him, and put him in a state of poverty and servitude for the rest of his life.

Consider that 60% of all marriages end in divorce, and 80% of those divorces are filed by women.

Is it rational for a man to enter into such an inheriantly dangerous and disequal contract? I've known people addicted to gambling, and even they wouldn't touch a game with such absurd odds stacked against them.

Men are avoiding marriage not because they are immature, but because marriage is a terrible deal for them. I know it is possible to get a prenup, but any judge can toss out a prenup, and in fact prenups are tossed out 70% of the time.

And, again, what is the response? Do we restructure the laws to be equitable? Do we prosecute women who file blatantly false charges of abuse and neglect against their husbands just to get a better deal in the divorce?

No, all we do is blame and shame men. We call them man-children and losers and pigs. We tell them to put down the video games and criticise them for not opting into a system and contract that is completely at odds with their own self-interest.

Is it any wonder so many young men are simply throwing up their arms and saying "screw you" to a society that offers them nothing but blame? No, it is not.

...

Coming from a woman, this is a dire assessment of our society generally. I don't disagree with it, I think you're being accurate, also in general.

What do you think is going to result in the near future because of the growing attitude of men toward marriage?

If marriage continues to atrophy, what will that mean for propagation of the species? And if propagation of the species remains a biological imperative for men and women, how will that happen outside of marriage and still maintain some order to society?

Will women dispense with men as too much trouble, and, as technology increases options, simply impregnate themselves artificially? And as time goes by, will society simply grow babies artificially and dispense with the whole biological imperative altogether?

If marriage is obsolete and too dangerous for men to bother, and if the biological imperatives are supplanted by technological reproduction, where does sex fit into all of it? Will people simply run amok sexually, with no consideration to sex being a permanent thing between two people?

I think all of the above is imminently possible....

[Stone holm]

Coming from a woman, this is a dire assessment of our society generally. I don't disagree with it, I think you're being accurate, also in general.

What do you think is going to result in the near future because of the growing attitude of men toward marriage?

If marriage continues to atrophy, what will that mean for propagation of the species? And if propagation of the species remains a biological imperative for men and women, how will that happen outside of marriage and still maintain some order to society?

Will women dispense with men as too much trouble, and, as technology increases options, simply impregnate themselves artificially? And as time goes by, will society simply grow babies artificially and dispense with the whole biological imperative altogether?

If marriage is obsolete and too dangerous for men to bother, and if the biological imperatives are supplanted by technological reproduction, where does sex fit into all of it? Will people simply run amok sexually, with no consideration to sex being a permanent thing between two people?

I think all of the above is imminently possible....

I listened to part of a comedy sketch about the idea that while men's greatest risk is cancer or heart attacks, women's greatest risk is men.

[The Nehor]

The way the family court laws are currently structured, a wife can, at any time and without any reason, take a man's house and children away from him, and put him in a state of poverty and servitude for the rest of his life.

Consider that 60% of all marriages end in divorce, and 80% of those divorces are filed by women.

So you mean women like this?

To be fair men can be equally bad at the whole divorce thing:

[Stone holm]

The system for dealing with family dissolutions is currently broken. I suspect that in part is due to a need to morph our social customs into something that better fits reality. Exactly how one does that I am not sure. I suspect, however, that we went a little overboard in our definition of child abuse.