On Gender Roles, The Proclamation, and USA Today

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Darren, this is my point.

 

See the part in bold?

 

This thread honors women. Or at least a woman. 

"But the AP photo also captures the sacrifice that women make. Connie Pham heroically gave up her body in order to bring new life into the world. No doubt she put her own safety at risk to stay behind with a vulnerable child. Escaping a flood of Biblical proportions is quite a bit harder to do with a 13-month-old in tow. In the picture, she grasps her baby with an intensity familiar to any mother."

That is straight from the opening post. It was the National Review's article which criticized women who view male rescuers as male toxicity most directly. 

Overall this thread honors the compatibility between men and women by specifically by men in general using what they are naturally more gifted in. Here it's their overall physical strength and rushing into danger so women won't have to. Not that women didn't help nor that they were not welcome to but men took charge to go headlong into danger. That is men being men. 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

cfr that Blue Dreams actually said what is in the quotes.  If she didn't, that is misrepresenting her because you said it, not her and such games with quotes are against board rules from how .I have seen mods respond to similar misrepresentations.

Shall I quote myself? She "seemed" is not a factual statement beyond what I percieve. 

[Darren10]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I don't think it's that wide actually.  Most here agree that both men and women were heroic and wanted to help and serve. And, it continues with both male and female volunteers desiring to offer their services.

It's not a competition and it's not a male vs. female issue for most on this thread from what I've seen.

Very true.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Now this is the attitude I would hope most members of the church would have concerning genders.  Very well put.  I guess I have a dislike for putting genders into little boxes because life is not really like that at all.  Nor should it be.  We all have limitations. But they are individual limitations and not gender limitations.

I quite agree with Buckeye's comment about the Savior's example being gender neutral. But that doesn't mean that some level of gendered roles aren't desirable at a societal level. What those should be specifically... well I suppose that is another conversation.

Given the success of the Wonder Woman movie (which *is* quite good) and several other heroine movies, we as a society seem to celebrate that a woman can kill people just as good as any man. 😊

[Darren10]

24 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I quite agree with Buckeye's comment about the Savior's example being gender neutral. But that doesn't mean that some level of gendered roles aren't desirable at a societal level. What those should be specifically... well I suppose that is another conversation.

Given the success of the Wonder Woman movie (which *is* quite good) and several other heroine movies, we as a society seem to celebrate that a woman can kill people just as good as any man. 😊

Wonder Woman is the best recent DC comic book turned to movie thus far since the first Nolan Batman movie. It's really good. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I like these National Review articles on equal pay. Please show me where they are factually wrong and how their positions keep women from earning equal pay. Thanks.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345106/equal-pay-day-debunked-three-minutes-carrie-lukas

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375725/obamas-bogus-equal-pay-stat-michael-barone

I also like this New York Times article of equal pay: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/us/politics/as-obama-spotlights-gender-gap-in-wages-his-own-payroll-draws-scrutiny.html

I liked the NYT article also, but the NR articles (and video) are straight propaganda, unconcerned with throwing honest light on societal problems for women or anyone else.  The hypocrisy of the staff at NR and the American Enterprise Institute is evident in the way in which they ignore the fact that real changes to real problems rarely come as a result of legislation or executive action.  In the L.A. County Sheriff's Dept, for example, women were simply not being allowed to become sergeants in reasonable numbers.  A female deputy took the Dept to court and obtained a federal consent decree closely monitored by the court requiring a minimum number of female sergeants in each group promotion.  There were simply too many male chauvinist pigs in supervisory positions, a problem which continues in all areas of American life.

[Darren10]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

I liked the NYT article also, but the NR articles (and video) are straight propaganda, unconcerned with throwing honest light on societal problems for women or anyone else.  The hypocrisy of the staff at NR and the American Enterprise Institute is evident in the way in which they ignore the fact that real changes to real problems rarely come as a result of legislation or executive action.  In the L.A. County Sheriff's Dept, for example, women were simply not being allowed to become sergeants in reasonable numbers.  A female deputy took the Dept to court and obtained a federal consent decree closely monitored by the court requiring a minimum number of female sergeants in each group promotion.  There were simply too many male chauvinist pigs in supervisory positions, a problem which continues in all areas of American life.

Over the past several years, National Review has gone way down. The rest of your post loses me though.

"The hypocrisy of the staff at NR and the American Enterprise Institute is evident in the way in which they ignore the fact that real changes to real problems rarely come as a result of legislation or executive action."

While there are reasons to criticize NR  (I'm completely unfamiliar with American Enterprise), I do not find them wanting legislation or executive action. They do seem to attack social ills, I guess hoping that doing so so sway the public against them.

As for California establishing so e sort of gender quota doesn't impress me. If anything, that seems to make tbi ngs worse, especially if the quota is by judicial fiat. 

But I don't want to derail this thread. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"If left to the conceptual world of the writers at National Review, women would never have been allowed to vote or to demand equal pay for equal work, much less to compete with men for exclusively male jobs."

Because they opposed the Equal Rights Amendment? 

The ERA has nothing to do with it, and you should try to resist the tendency to make non sequiturs.  It is a fact that the right wing always resisted allowing women to have equal rights, despite the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- which some people hate.  Women and Black people have both suffered the lack of equal protection of the laws, and have only slowly been able to benefit from lawsuits brought to remedy that injustice.  Progress has been slow, but sure.

As for the fake masculinity of the male chauvinist pigs in our society (including The Donald),  it is easy to see them as the frightened little boys which they are.  They need to grow up and show some manhood.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Over the past several years, National Review has gone way down. The rest of your post loses me though.

"The hypocrisy of the staff at NR and the American Enterprise Institute is evident in the way in which they ignore the fact that real changes to real problems rarely come as a result of legislation or executive action."

While there are reasons to criticize NR  (I'm completely unfamiliar with American Enterprise), I do not find them wanting legislation or executive action. They do seem to attack social ills, I guess hoping that doing so so sway the public against them.

Your second article speaks about the American Enterprise Institute, which is another right wing propaganda organization.  They offer no real solutions to any social ills.

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

As for California establishing so e sort of gender quota doesn't impress me. If anything, that seems to make tbi ngs worse, especially if the quota is by judicial fiat. 

But I don't want to derail this thread. 

Just like The Donald, you may grouse about court actions which you don't like, but when the legislators or executives do not take reasonable action, there is no where else to turn than the courts.  Perhaps you'd prefer to go back to the days in which women and Blacks were not allowed in medical schools, and the number of Jews allowed in was deliberately limited.  Perhaps you don't believe in a meritocracy and fairness.  Certainly the white male chauvinist pigs in our society have never believed in fairness.  They have been dragged kicking and screaming (like the little boys they are) into the modern world, and they still complain about it while drinking beer with their childish buddies.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Shall I quote myself? She "seemed" is not a factual statement beyond what I percieve. 

But the quotes make it appear differently.  I suggest you use '.....' in the future or some other indicator or I will be reporting you.  Altering what people say is a pet peeve of mine and creating a quote that doesn't exist is such an alteration.

[Darren10]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The ERA has nothing to do with it, and you should try to resist the tendency to make non sequiturs.  It is a fact that the right wing always resisted allowing women to have equal rights, despite the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- which some people hate.  Women and Black people have both suffered the lack of equal protection of the laws, and have only slowly been able to benefit from lawsuits brought to remedy that injustice.  Progress has been slow, but sure.

As for the fake masculinity of the male chauvinist pigs in our society (including The Donald),  it is easy to see them as the frightened little boys which they are.  They need to grow up and show some manhood.

The Donald most decinitely is a male chauvanist but I am nlt familiar with his having harmed women. Bill Clinton has. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposed the ERA. I was merely trying to guess what you meant by your saying, (I'm avoiding the word "crituque" and just quote you directly), " If left to the conceptual world of the writers at National Review, women would never have been allowed to vote or to demand equal pay for equal work, much less to compete with men for exclusively male jobs." I have never seen National Review as a media which ever opposed women voting or opposing equal pay. In fact, if you really want to push this line of argument I'll do the ultimate and....CFR you. But Let's avoid that.

And you do know the 14th Amendment was very much a product of the Republican Party, yes? Or do you think It's Conservatives who oppose women voting and equal pay? 

But this is contentious. I actually wanted to ask you if you served in the police force since you served under seargents and captains? If so, I think That's really cool. 

Edited September 3, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/03/the-equal-rights-amendment?lang=eng

[Darren10]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the quotes make it appear differently.  I suggest you use '.....' in the future or some other indicator or I will be reporting you.  Altering what people say is a pet peeve of mine and creating a quote that doesn't exist is such an alteration.

I was quoting my own thoughts. Thus the "   "; not the '    '. 

"Altering what people say is a pet peeve of mine and creating a quote that doesn't exist is such an alteration." 

You and I are of onee spirit. It's a pet peeve if mine as well. 

Edited September 3, 2017 by Darren10

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The Donald most decinitely is a male chauvanist but I am nlt familiar with his having harmed women. Bill Clinton has. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposed the ERA. I was merely trying to guess what you meant by your saying, (I'm avoiding the word "crituque" and just quote you directly), " If left to the conceptual world of the writers at National Review, women would never have been allowed to vote or to demand equal pay for equal work, much less to compete with men for exclusively male jobs." I have never seen National Review as a media which ever opposed women voting or opposing equal pay. In fact, if you really want to push this line of argument I'll do the ultimate and....CFR you. But Let's avoid that.

You are apparently unaware that women were at one time not allowed to vote in this country.  In fact Mormons were the very first to allow  women to vote.  Maybe  words like "suffrage" and "suffragettes" are unfamiliar to you, or that Mormon women were among the strongest suffragettes in America, with the full approval of the Brethren.  Anyhow, long about 1919, the 19th Amendment was enacted giving the right to vote to women.  The right wing staunchly opposed it, regarding women as inherently unequal to men.

21 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

And you do know the 14th Amendment was very much a product of the Republican Party, yes? Or do you think It's Conservatives who oppose women voting and equal pay? 

Yes, the 14th Amendment was pushed by the Republican Party, the anti-slavery party which had made war on the Rebel South.  White Southern racists continued in what became the Democratic Party, pushing all possible forms of segregation, Jim Crow, and lynch law.  In the course of time these two parties switched policies, the Southern racists first becoming what were known as "Dixiecrats" and finally switching over to the now conservative Republican Party -- where they are today.  The conservatives always opposed equal rights for women and Blacks, and the heirs to that policy are the editors at NR and many others.

21 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

But this is contentious. I actually wanted to ask you if you served in the police force since you served under seargents and captains? If so, I think That's really cool. 

Yes.

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"The result is good. These men are wonderful heros. As were the women who did the same."

Yet, *this type* of rescuing was done overwhelmingly by men. Is that wrong? So, why do you seem to feel onlbigated to insert 'as were the women'? No one is denying nor diminishing that. This article simply honors men for being men. 

It's not right or wrong. It's a product of some self-selection, opportunity, and cultural rules.

I emphasized women because you keep describing this as a moment of "men being men." I'm reasserting this wasn't an all male endeavor and that it likely didn't have to be as male predominate as it was. I also still don't know what you mean by this "men for being men" phraseology. If you mean by numbers being more heavily male, here is another picture of "men being men:"

 Behold the raw masculinity. No really.... high end chefs are a male dominated arena. So this is also a great exhibit of men being men.  At least if male dominance is an indicator. 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Edited September 3, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Maidservant]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

There. Fixed it.

.

I was on the floor laughing like a loud horse for five minutes!  My kids were wondering what was going on, ha ha ha ha ha.  I can't believe it was you who posted this CV75!  Bullseye.

Men are incredible.

My husband never squashed bugs, pumped gas, balanced a checkbook, or lifted and packed suitcases into the car.  Those were my jobs.

But he did get the kindergartners fed lunch, dressed, and on the bus.  When I said I wanted to be a rockstar, without hesitation he said, "I'll be the roadie and carry the amps."  He never thought my (dumb) ideas were dumb.

He could break a horse, round up cattle, fix a combine, build fence.   But, then, so do all his sisters.

He loved baseball.  But when I decided that for a family project we would be doing choreography to a Shakira song (that happened), he never hesitated.  (Of course, he provided the biceps for the dance tricks, ha ha.)

If manhood is being like our Heavenly Father . . . He takes care of his kids 24/7.  That's the model for men.

I have two sons who love sports and are constantly watching or playing.  I have two sons who would rather have their nose hairs pulled one by one than play a sport.  One of those sons graduated culinary arts, which he said he knew he wanted to do from the time he was three years old and saw toast being made.  (For the record, my hubby made awesome brownies, choc chip cookies, pancakes, and fry bread.  He also did most of the dishes that ever got done.  I did every thing else houseworkwise.  I have rounded up cattle too.  Okay, one time, ha ha.)

As far as defending and protecting, my older daughter got on the phone and schooled someone that was making life difficult for me because of a misunderstanding.  Her faculties were completely aroused by her sense that I was being hurt.

My oldest son (one of the sports lovers), has recently had his dream come true of being a daddy.  I remember when he was 18 years old, he told me that he could hardly wait until he could have a baby, and sometimes he might let his wife hold it, ha ha ha.  (I have two sons, the oldest--sporty, the youngest--nonsporty--who make a beeline to any baby they see in a room.)  This same son (oldest) when he was about 13 said, "When I grow up, we are going to decorate for Christmas right on December 1!"  I kind of paused and looked at him, and then he took a breath and rephrased, "When I grow up, I'm going to ask my wife if we can decorate for Christmas on December 1!"  We both laughed.  Anyway, when his son was born a few weeks ago, he held him and looked at me and said, "I don't have to give this one back."

Both men and women are warriors . . . they guard each other . . . brothers and sisters . . . THAT'S how it works.  (Movie recommendation: Dragons Fire and Ice).

Edited September 3, 2017 by Maidservant

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It's not right or wrong. It's a product of some self-selection, opportunity, and cultural rules.

I emphasized women because you keep describing this as a moment of "men being men." I'm reasserting this wasn't an all male endeavor and that it likely didn't have to be as male predominate as it was. I also still don't know what you mean by this "men for being men" phraseology. If you mean by numbers being more heavily male, here is another picture of "men being men:"

 Behold the raw masculinity. No really.... high end chefs are a male dominated arena. So this is also a great exhibit of men being men.  At least if male dominance is an indicator. 

 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Check out Chef Ramsey. He da bomb! 

 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

I was on the floor laughing like a loud horse for five minutes!  My kids were wondering what was going on, ha ha ha ha ha.  I can't believe it was you who posted this CV75!  Bullseye.

Men are incredible.

My husband never squashed bugs, pumped gas, balanced a checkbook, or lifted and packed suitcases into the car.  Those were my jobs.

But he did get the kindergartners fed lunch, dressed, and on the bus.  When I said I wanted to be a rockstar, without hesitation he said, "I'll be the roadie and carry the amps."  He never thought my (dumb) ideas were dumb.

He could break a horse, round up cattle, fix a combine, build fence.   But, then, so do all his sisters.

He loved baseball.  But when I decided that for a family project we would be doing choreography to a Shakira song (that happened), he never hesitated.  (Of course, he provided the biceps for the dance tricks, ha ha.)

If manhood is being like our Heavenly Father . . . He takes care of his kids 24/7.  That's the model for men.

I have two sons who love sports and are constantly watching or playing.  I have two sons who would rather have their nose hairs pulled one by one than play a sport.  One of those sons graduated culinary arts, which he said he knew he wanted to do from the time he was three years old and saw toast being made.  (For the record, my hubby made awesome brownies, choc chip cookies, pancakes, and fry bread.  He also did most of the dishes that ever got done.  I did every thing else houseworkwise.  I have rounded up cattle too.  Okay, one time, ha ha.)

As far as defending and protecting, my older daughter got on the phone and schooled someone that was making life difficult for me because of a misunderstanding.  Her faculties were completely aroused by her sense that I was being hurt.

My oldest son (one of the sports lovers), has recently had his dream come true of being a daddy.  I remember when he was 18 years old, he told me that he could hardly wait until he could have a baby, and sometimes he might let his wife hold it, ha ha ha.  (I have two sons, the oldest--sporty, the youngest--nonsporty--who make a beeline to any baby they see in a room.)  This same son (oldest) when he was about 13 said, "When I grow up, we are going to decorate for Christmas right on December 1!"  I kind of paused and looked at him, and then he took a breath and rephrased, "When I grow up, I'm going to ask my wife if we can decorate for Christmas on December 1!"  We both laughed.  Anyway, when his son was born a few weeks ago, he held him and looked at me and said, "I don't have to give this one back."

Both men and women are warriors . . . they guard each other . . . brothers and sisters . . . THAT'S how it works.  (Movie recommendation: Dragons Fire and Ice).

Key part is that man and woman work together. However that plays out it plays out. 

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The ERA has nothing to do with it, and you should try to resist the tendency to make non sequiturs.  It is a fact that the right wing always resisted allowing women to have equal rights, despite the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- which some people hate.  Women and Black people have both suffered the lack of equal protection of the laws, and have only slowly been able to benefit from lawsuits brought to remedy that injustice.  Progress has been slow, but sure.

As for the fake masculinity of the male chauvinist pigs in our society (including The Donald),  it is easy to see them as the frightened little boys which they are.  They need to grow up and show some manhood.

Bill must be an absolutely horrified male fetus! 

[Rain]

If this were an article about praising gender roles I would support it. I am all for the Proclamation on the Family. However, that is not what it is. It is about discounting women who have experienced mansplaining, rape culture, misogyny etc. 

When I was in Italy I fell in love with a wood carving of the Nativity. I had been seeing statues and paintings everywhere of Mary and baby Jesus, but Joseph was almost always missing. This statue had Joseph with his arms around Mary and Jesus in a protective posture and it spoke to me deeply. It also greatly reminded me of my husband.

So when the article mentioned the one picture was like a nativity I instantly thought of my carving. 

I would have loved an article covering something like this and the other men who were rescuers. By beginning the article discounting the very real things some women endure it shows the article was never really about praising gender roles. 

Edited September 3, 2017 by Rain

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are apparently unaware that women were at one time not allowed to vote in this country.  In fact Mormons were the very first to allow  women to vote.  Maybe  words like "suffrage" and "suffragettes" are unfamiliar to you, or that Mormon women were among the strongest suffragettes in America, with the full approval of the Brethren.  Anyhow, long about 1919, the 19th Amendment was enacted giving the right to vote to women.  The right wing staunchly opposed it, regarding women as inherently unequal to men.

Yes, the 14th Amendment was pushed by the Republican Party, the anti-slavery party which had made war on the Rebel South.  White Southern racists continued in what became the Democratic Party, pushing all possible forms of segregation, Jim Crow, and lynch law.  In the course of time these two parties switched policies, the Southern racists first becoming what were known as "Dixiecrats" and finally switching over to the now conservative Republican Party -- where they are today.  The conservatives always opposed equal rights for women and Blacks, and the heirs to that policy are the editors at NR and many others.

Yes.

Was it this thread soneone mentioned being on a podium gets uncomfortable after too long or something to that affect? It's 1:30 AM an I just got back driving northwest Houton to northeast Houston so I do not want ot spend time finding it; but apparently there is a podium in this thread. It's the C-Podium. "C" is for condescension and through its art I have learned to identify bold letters in posts and now what "sufferage" means. And here I though sufferage was a compound word meaning "to suffer age". So, I want to get on that podium too right now. What? Yes, you need ot move over, it's a small podium, so if you can just...what? Yes, you can hold my hand and us three can support each other...on second thought, forget it. Stay there yourselves if you want but I'd much rather talk with you both.

"Anyhow, long about 1919, the 19th Amendment was enacted giving the right to vote to women.  The right wing staunchly opposed it, regarding women as inherently unequal to men."

Cfr - who were the "right wingers". My understanding is that among the first supporters of women's suffaerage were snti-slave and even abolitionists such as the Liberty Party. Could you specify at least a few of the "right wingers" who opposed wonen's sufferage. In addition, I'd like to know why they were "right wingers". Thanks.

"In fact Mormons were the very first to allow women to vote."

Here's something I'd definitely love to have your knowledge about. My understanding is that Mormon women were the first in the nation to vote but the fact of the matter is that Wyoming territory allowed women sufferage before the Utah territory. In the past I've been challenged eith this fact and I have not found supporting evidende about Mormon women bring the first to vote. Did they vote locally lime in Nauvoo? Clearly the concept of all voting was well practiced within the Church. 

Now the reason I brought up the ERA was that it came up wihtin the timeframe of the existence of National Review. The magazine started in 1955. The ERA was brought up in the 80s. I suspected that the "world view" you placed upon National Review was that they are Conservative / Libertarian but I did not think you'd go back to the early 1900s, decades before National Review even existed;  unless you were responding to my ERA opposition from the LDS Church. If that's the case then I agree with the church's opposition to it, National Review also. 

"Yes, the 14th Amendment was pushed by the Republican Party, the anti-slavery party which had made war on the Rebel South." 

Here I assume you meant that the North "fought" a war against the South, correct. To say they "made war" makes it seem as if they started war South which would be factually incorrect. The correct narrative is that the Democrat South waged war against the North, against the Yankees / Republicans. 

"White Southern racists continued in what became the Democratic Party, pushing all possible forms of segregation, Jim Crow, and lynch law.  In the course of time these two parties switched policies, the Southern racists first becoming what were known as "Dixiecrats" and finally switching over to the now conservative Republican Party -- where they are today."

Cfr2 - If by saying, 'the two parties switched policies', when did that happend? Are you saying that the Republican Party became the party that supported Jim Crow Laws? Lynch laws too? Republicans were the party which not only created the 14 Amendment but also pushed through the Civil Rights Act. 

cfr3 - "Southern racists...switch[ed] over to the now conservative Republican Party -- where they are today" - Of the Democrats who supported segregation, Jim Crow, lunching, how many became Republican? I can think of two and one's name escapes at the moment. 

So since so many racist Democrats turned Republican, who are some of them?

While you collect your data I'll link you to your favorite online magazine. Please show me what is historically inaccurate. I'd be obliged. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386257/myth-republican-racism-mona-charen

Quote

It’s true that a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, shepherded the 1964 Civil Rights Act to passage. But who voted for it? Eighty percent of Republicans in the House voted aye, as against 61 percent of Democrats. In the Senate, 82 percent of Republicans favored the law, but only 69 percent of Democrats. Among the Democrats voting nay were Albert Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, and J. William Fulbright.

The Republican presidential candidate in 1964 also opposed the Civil Rights Act. Barry Goldwater had been an enthusiastic backer of the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts (both overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats). He was a founding member of the Arizona chapter of the NAACP. He hired many blacks in his family business and pushed to desegregate the Arizona National Guard. He had a good-faith objection to some features of the 1964 act, which he regarded as unconstitutional.

Goldwater was no racist. The same cannot be said of Fulbright, on whom Bill Clinton bestowed the Medal of Freedom. Fulbright was one of the 19 senators who signed the “Southern manifesto” defending segregation.

And it's my understandin that Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act under great pressure from the Republican majority of the Senate. In support of this understanding (bold mine):

Quote

Former racists of both parties renounced their old views (as Kevin D. Williamson points out, Lyndon Johnson himself voted against anti-lynching laws and poll-tax repeals), and neither party has a perfect record on racial matters by any stretch. But it is a libel to suggest that the Republican party, the anti-slavery party, the party of Lincoln, and the party that traditionally supported civil rights, anti-lynching laws, and integration, became the racist party after 1964.

Luv ya' bro. I'll await your reply. 

[Darren10]

5 minutes ago, Rain said:

If this were an article about praising gender roles I would support it. I am all for the Proclamation on the Family. However, that is not what it is. It is aboutdiscounting women who have experienced mansplaining, rape culture, misogyny etc. 

When I was in Italy I fell in love with a wood carving of the Nativity. I had been seeing statues and painting everywhere of Mary and baby Jesus, but Joseph was almost always missing. This statue had Joseph with his arms around Mary and Jesus in a protective posture and it spoke to me deeply. It also greatly reminded me of my husband.

So when the article mentioned the one picture was like a nativity I instantly thought of my carving. 

I would have loved an article covering something like this and the other men who were rescuers. By beginning the article discounting the very real things some women endure it shows the article was never really about praising gender roles. 

The National Review article is definitely about that. The thread incorporates it inot an overall theme that men are really good when they are men. 

[Calm]

Men being men is not equal to men being good men:

Cosmo, that high end journal exploring the complex male/female relationships among other things came up with these men being men behaviours.  Am I supposed to applaud these because they show men being men?

Men being men behaviours that Cosmo women would like them to stop, be warned, much is vulgar, men being men also includes some pretty disgusting behaviours...

Edited because of length...and there is a range of importance (numbering does not indicate standing)

1) Men need to stop sending women pictures of their penises.

2) stop Catcalling, especially when accompanied by 'what I want to do to you' descriptions, for example:  "On this note, a serious explainer: "It is very scary to be walking alone and have a man yell out of a car or the side of the street something sexual and usually assault-like. "I want to grab your tits," "NICE RACK," "I'd **** you sideways". Those are all SCARY. Because every time it's someone who could [do so] if they wanted to just do that and I couldn't stop it. They are bigger than me. They are stronger than me. Having it shoved in my face with it being yelled at me is terrifying."

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a7075/terrible-things-guys-do/

3) Stop calling women one doesn't  know (and some one does if that is not your relationship) by pet names, demeaning....

4) Stop "rubbing your junk" against women when they are dancing in a club...women in public are not men's personal property

5) Stop calling her bossy when she is acting like male co-workers.

6) Stop asking if she has her period when she is upset, "by asking, men have instantly invalidated every woman's emotions about anything. If something is upsetting me, I am allowed to be upset about it." "

7)  Stop calling women cute and laughing when she gets angry about something she is passionate about

8 ) Stop cutting women off when they speak

 9) Stop moving in on women if she says she is in a relationship and stop suggesting she go on birth control within a week of first date....let her determine her own boundaries, men shouldn't  force their  way past them...

10) Stop ignoring the sexist and demeaning comments one's friends make, toleration of such may make it appear one agree with them.

 

Men are really good men when they work at being really good men, just as women are really good women when they work at being really good women, and Americans are really good when they work at being really good Americans.

"The natural man is an enemy to God".  Men being men is a huge range of behaviour that can top out at sublime, profound, courageous, heroic and all the way down to violent perversion and vicious territoriality.

I love to see men being good men, for heroism, for service in  medical fiields, for many, many roles where they have save lives and made the better.  We need good men, decent men.  We need to celebrate good men.

Celebrating "Men being men" as if there is something inherently brilliant in men is not something I approve of knowing there are men being men by being looters, attackers of the weak, drunken idiots hurting those doing good things, and rapists.****

****https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/30/16221902/hurricane-harvey-katrina-sexual-assault-survivors

This Men being Men is not noble protection of a woman.

http://pix11.com/2017/05/19/man-beats-up-pair-after-they-catcalled-girlfriend-in-inwood-cops/

Edited September 3, 2017 by Calm

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Men being men is not equal to men being good men:

Cosmo, that high end journal exploring the complex male/female relationships among other things came up with these men being men behaviours.  Am I supposed to applaud these because they show men being men?

Men being men behaviours that Cosmo women would like them to stop, be warned, much is vulgar, men being men also includes some pretty disgusting behaviours...

Edited because of length...and there is a range of importance (numbering does not indicate standing)

1) Men need to stop sending women pictures of their penises.

2) stop Catcalling, especially when accompanied by 'what I want to do to you' descriptions, for example:  "On this note, a serious explainer: "It is very scary to be walking alone and have a man yell out of a car or the side of the street something sexual and usually assault-like. "I want to grab your tits," "NICE RACK," "I'd **** you sideways". Those are all SCARY. Because every time it's someone who could [do so] if they wanted to just do that and I couldn't stop it. They are bigger than me. They are stronger than me. Having it shoved in my face with it being yelled at me is terrifying."

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/news/a7075/terrible-things-guys-do/

3) Stop calling women one doesn't  know (and some one does if that is not your relationship) by pet names, demeaning....

4) Stop "rubbing your junk" against women when they are dancing in a club...women in public are not men's personal property

5) Stop calling her bossy when she is acting like male co-workers.

6) Stop asking if she has her period when she is upset, "by asking, men have instantly invalidated every woman's emotions about anything. If something is upsetting me, I am allowed to be upset about it." "

7)  Stop calling women cute and laughing when she gets angry about something she is passionate about

8 ) Stop cutting women off when they speak

 9) Stop moving in on women if she says she is in a relationship and stop suggesting she go on birth control within a week of first date....let her determine her own boundaries, men shouldn't  force their  way past them...

10) Stop ignoring the sexist and demeaning comments one's friends make, toleration of such may make it appear one agree with them.

 

Men are really good men when they work at being really good men, just as women are really good women when they work at being really good women, and Americans are really good when they work at being really good Americans.

"The natural man is an enemy to God".  Men being men is a huge range of behaviour that can top out at sublime, profound, courageous, heroic and all the way down to violent perversion and vicious territoriality.

I love to see men being good men, for heroism, for service in  medical fiields, for many, many roles where they have save lives and made the better.  We need good men, decent men.  We need to celebrate good men.

Celebrating "Men being men" as if there is something inherently brilliant in men is not something I approve of knowing there are men being men by being looters, attackers of the weak, drunken idiots hurting those doing good thing, and rapists.****

****https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/30/16221902/hurricane-harvey-katrina-sexual-assault-survivors

It's garbage like that which is why threads like these which honors men being men is so needed today. That sewage image of what "being a man" is is plaguing all our society.

THIS is how men are men:

Quote

One morning about a year after the surgery, my father took Mother to an appliance store and asked the manager to show her how to use a machine he had for ironing clothes. The machine was called an Ironrite. It was operated from a chair by pressing pedals with one’s knees to lower a padded roller against a heated metal surface and turn the roller, feeding in shirts, pants, dresses, and other articles. You can see that this would make ironing (of which there was a great deal in our family of five boys) much easier, especially for a woman with limited use of her arm. Mother was shocked when Dad told the manager they would buy the machine and then paid cash for it. Despite my father’s good income as a veterinarian, Mother’s surgery and medications had left them in a difficult financial situation.

On the way home, my mother was upset: “How can we afford it? Where did the money come from? How will we get along now?” Finally Dad told her that he had gone without lunches for nearly a year to save enough money. “Now when you iron,” he said, “you won’t have to stop and go into the bedroom and cry until the pain in your arm stops.” She didn’t know he knew about that. I was not aware of my father’s sacrifice and act of love for my mother at the time, but now that I know, I say to myself, “There is a man.”

Let Us Be Men

This is excellent too:

Quote

Happily, my wise parents put great heroes in my path as a boy. My dad took me to Yankee Stadium only once to observe my baseball hero play, but every Sunday he let me observe a priesthood man who became a hero. That hero shaped my life. My father was the branch president of the little branch which met in our home. By the way, if you came down to the first floor on Sunday morning, you were in church. Our branch never had more than 30 people in attendance.

The Priesthood Man

Calm;

If Jesus Christ, the author of the Priesthood, and it is under His direction by which *men* are ordained to in the Priesthood, were to look down on this thread and see a post dedicated to men, and the valor of men being men, He'd be upset because it did not also include women? You honestly think He would be upset that we're only the purpose of this thread is that men are good when they are men deliberately countering the social portrayal as men being men akin to being sex perverts? Your post is a perfect example why something like this is needed. Perilously so.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I came here to post the following:

 

I post this because I just read a meme on facebook by my wife's cousin, who also lives in Houston, saying "has anyone checked on George strait's exes yet?" Now THAT is funny, and I can't stand country music.