T
TimeEntrance
Guest
Stands peeing?Here’s how I see it:
Beware of women who act like dudes.
Stands peeing?Here’s how I see it:
Beware of women who act like dudes.
I’ve wondered more than once what life today would be like if that was the manly ideal instead of gangsterism today.You have no idea how PUMPED UP I got when reading this. Man. THAT was THE way of life. That is what we need today. That is what all men need to be today. Lord, please, I pray for these values to once again storm this Earth in a torrent of courage and bravery.
Yeah… but it was more than just bravery like lerapt pointed out. Mobsters can be brave and in the Sicilian Mafia or Chicago Outfit as opposed to the Neapolitan Camorrah… they obey a strict pyramid of authority.Indeed.
Sadly, chivalry had been demonized in many circles.
Amen!Even in Catholic circles. It won’t take long even on this forum to find that out.
I fear that we are entrenched in the sort of philosophical liberalism too deeply to fix anything. It will take an act of God to restore. Woe to those who oppose His will in the coming age.
As in, acting like a man and denying her femininity in the process.Stands peeing?![]()
Kind of like standing while peeing.As in, acting like a man and denying her femininity in the process.
But worse than that.Kind of like standing while peeing.![]()
Carn, please relax for a moment. I don’t think that anyone is blatantly disputing what you are saying concerning the sexes gravitating or excelling at specific roles in society. However, stop and consider this for a moment… why is this? Is it because when you were growing up society “expected” and/or groomed the sexes for roles in which had traditionally been gender specific? I ask this knowing from personal experience that there are very able-bodied women out there that can indeed hold their own on the battlefield and in a riot formation just as there are men out there that do very well educating our children. As I said before, the only restrictions that need to be applied is whether or not the PERSON being considered for the position is capable of performing the tasks required of them (the exception being those positions relating to the clergy). Like it or not, society is blurring the line between what once was considered a “men’s only/women’s only” profession. One hundred years from now, I expect that this won’t even be a point of discussion.And, i repeat myself but it has to be repeated often because it is often ignored, even if you have a discrimination free society, in which for each job only the most qualified are selected, in which each man and woman can be found in any position and in which not the slightest implication whatever from birth onwards is made towards boys and girls, that they should orient themselves to specific jobs, even in such society one might end up with military 80% men, police 70% men, infantry 95% men, riot police 99% men, kindergardeners 90% women, basic school teachers 60% women, people working in voluntary uncompensated charity 90% women, people having the job “evil heartless job-destroying capitalist” 90% men and so on.
The error of modern society is to ignore this and somehow assume that all should and will one day be 50%.
Depending on the scope of “anyone” (this thread, this forum, Church, western society) someone does:I don’t think that anyone is blatantly disputing what you are saying concerning the sexes gravitating or excelling at specific roles in society.
Of course it has multiple causes, but a difference caused by biology remains. Read about the above institute, it was closed, because this so-called scientific institute ignored the scientific evidence for biological factors. Its proven beyond doubt, that men biologically have on average more muscle buildup with same training and are more aggressive.However, stop and consider this for a moment… why is this? Is it because when you were growing up society “expected” and/or groomed the sexes for roles in which had traditionally been gender specific?
Yes, but that experience in no way provides information about the averages.I ask this knowing from personal experience that there are very able-bodied women out there that can indeed hold their own on the battlefield and in a riot formation just as there are men out there that do very well educating our children.
I never would say otherwise. I am married to a female PHD physicist, who researched kaon production in proton proton collisions.As I said before, the only restrictions that need to be applied is whether or not the PERSON being considered for the position is capable of performing the tasks required of them (the exception being those positions relating to the clergy).
I neither like nor dislike it, nature is as nature is. It can be sometimes changed, but only if one knows what on is up to. I dislike people unable to understand, although the female heavyweight world champion can deal easily with most men, that on average men are better at beating up other people and more willing to do so than women.Like it or not, society is blurring the line between what once was considered a “men’s only/women’s only” profession.
Only with serious genetic engeneering or implanting devices in the brain.One hundred years from now, I expect that this won’t even be a point of discussion.
That exactly is not only blatantly disputed, its completely ignored by modern societies with people suggesting otherwise threatened by social anathema.Carn, please relax for a moment. I don’t think that anyone is blatantly disputing what you are saying concerning the sexes gravitating or excelling at specific roles in society.
Some of them are in Europe with hair under their arms.But worse than that.
Is it even possible to measure something like that?To narrow the scope of this topic a bit, since it seems to have dwindled down to an argument, here is a new topic:
Is gender (or sex, if that is the more proper term to indicate the differentiation of people from men and women) entirely mental and physical, or is it also spiritual? Is there a spiritual difference between men and women?