or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Have Men become wussies around women?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Have Men become wussies around women? - Page 4

post #46 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by ekimho
edit: can I delete this post?
Ok, but leave the picture.
post #47 of 73
It's interesting, Soph. In the novel Goldfinger, written in the mid-1950s, or nearly ten years before the movie came out, Fleming has the book Bond think the same thing: men have become weaklings and pansies, and women have become confused almost-men, all because.... women had received the right to vote a generation or so before. So there's the solution to your dilemma.

And yet, Fleming's image of Bond, the last real Clubland Hero, looked like a dilettantish young David Niven -- he commissioned his own artist to draw a rendition for the Bond comic strip which ran in the early 1960s. Debonair, effete, dour. It was refused as too pre-war, and a brawny, sanguine Bond was drawn instead. One who looked much more like Connery, whom Fleming called a "lorry driver hired to fuck up my character". There's a conflict in there between Fleming's chauvinistic, aggressive literary creation and the more effete image he had of his creation. Perhaps he would have found the movie Bond too effete too, in some way. He detested what the film Dr No did to Bond, but cunningly wrote his later novels to suit, so he thought, the movie Bond, according to Fleming's biographer Andrew Lycett.
post #48 of 73
A woman, without her man, is nothing.
A woman: without her, man is nothing.

- Lynne Truss
post #49 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnapril
A woman, without her man, is nothing.
A woman: without her, man is nothing.

- Lynne Truss

I gonna use this next time I'm on the golf course, to see if I get my ass kicked.
post #50 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnapril
A woman, without her man, is nothing.
A woman: without her, man is nothing.

- Lynne Truss

---What a wuss
post #51 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soph
---What a wuss

See you at the crossroads.
post #52 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnapril
See you at the crossroads.

post #53 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad
Guess it depends on how broad or narrow a definition of "drama" you use. Just about every time I play pick-up basketball, some wannabe macho guy starts picking a fight or at least becoming verbally abusive with somebody else about a foul call or something. Isn't that "drama"? And you're probably right that crying doesn't "solve" anything, other than perhaps the need for some emotional catharsis or relief. But what is "solved" by more stereotypically masculine behaviors like aggressiveness or violence?


You're right about aggressiveness and violence being drama (for the most part). I guess (and the balance seems hard to describe) how I would describe manliness or masculine as being able to stand up for one's self (to use the basketball analogy) and say "foul" and deal with whatever people say about it without crying, punching, kicking, or putting down women or whatever.
post #54 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13
You're right about aggressiveness and violence being drama (for the most part). I guess (and the balance seems hard to describe) how I would describe manliness or masculine as being able to stand up for one's self (to use the basketball analogy) and say "foul" and deal with whatever people say about it without crying, punching, kicking, or putting down women or whatever.
Agreed.
post #55 of 73
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13
You're right about aggressiveness and violence being drama (for the most part). I guess (and the balance seems hard to describe) how I would describe manliness or masculine as being able to stand up for one's self (to use the basketball analogy) and say "foul" and deal with whatever people say about it without crying, punching, kicking, or putting down women or whatever.

Agreed, not crying, becoming a violent , putting down women and dealing with psychos and idiots as an adult is a true sign of a man. That and drawing a line with your women (an) when they cross into unreasonable behavior.
post #56 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soph
Agreed, not crying, becoming a violent , putting down women and dealing with psychos and idiots as an adult is a true sign of a man. That and drawing a line with your women (an) when they cross into unreasonable behavior.

Doormats are definitely not manly. Been there done that. I used to think that women were attracted to "nice guys" that bent over backwards for them (in my younger days). That just leads to being used.
post #57 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13
Doormats are definitely not manly. Been there done that. I used to think that women were attracted to "nice guys" that bent over backwards for them (in my younger days). That just leads to being used.
At the risk of falling too far into lawerly semantics, I'd again suggest there's a definitional issue. If being a "nice guy" means being a doormat and not standing up for yourself in a relationship, I don't think that's particularly heathy or attractive for anybody. Some of the "nicest" folks I know are among the most willing to draw lines and insist on what's important to them. I do agree with you that for many guys, especially when they are younger, the distinction between being a nice guy - in the sense of being honest, respectful of others, etc. - and being a doormat can be a difficult one to grasp.
post #58 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tck13
You're right about aggressiveness and violence being drama (for the most part). I guess (and the balance seems hard to describe) how I would describe manliness or masculine as being able to stand up for one's self (to use the basketball analogy) and say "foul" and deal with whatever people say about it without crying, punching, kicking, or putting down women or whatever.

The flip side is the ability to stand up and say, "y'know what, I screwed up" without making excuses. I think it's a lot easier to call a "foul" on another person than on yourself.
post #59 of 73
It all relates to what you place importance on. Sometimes a "nice guy" can be extremely straightforward and level-headed about a relationship. For some guys (sounds like Soph falls into this camp) the idea of love / mating is played out as a game. The hunt, the victory, etc. For myself, a lover is more like a best friend. Thus, I'm very nice and agreeable and I'd do lots for my lady friend, but I'm certainly no doormat. The longest lasting relationships operate upon a 50/50 equality ideology. For others, love is all about the passion and the immediate gratification. The six types of love are Agape (hopeless, used, desparate), Storge (friendship), Eros (passionate, burn out quickly), Pragma (practicality.. I.e. "I wouldn't date someone unless our family genes would mix well), Mania (obsessive/posessive, hyper-jealous), and Ludus (love's a game). It would be impossible to find an agreeable ground between the different types. I believe most people are a combination of the above types, with one that is specifically higher.
post #60 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad
At the risk of falling too far into lawerly semantics, I'd again suggest there's a definitional issue. If being a "nice guy" means being a doormat and not standing up for yourself in a relationship, I don't think that's particularly heathy or attractive for anybody. Some of the "nicest" folks I know are among the most willing to draw lines and insist on what's important to them. I do agree with you that for many guys, especially when they are younger, the distinction between being a nice guy - in the sense of being honest, respectful of others, etc. - and being a doormat can be a difficult one to grasp.


That's why I put "nice guy" in quotes. There is nothing wrong with being nice. Doormat "nice guy" / forced "niceness" doesn't get anybody anywhere.

Quote:
The six types of love are Agape (hopeless, used, desparate), Storge (friendship), Eros (passionate, burn out quickly), Pragma (practicality.. I.e. "I wouldn't date someone unless our family genes would mix well), Mania (obsessive/posessive, hyper-jealous), and Ludus (love's a game). It would be impossible to find an agreeable ground between the different types. I believe most people are a combination of the above types, with one that is specifically higher.

Isn't it interesting that the english language does not encompass any of these types of "love". Love is love but can mean so many different things in the english language. Love a cat, love your grandmother, love your car, love the John Lobb Tudor boot with the plain vamp hand finished bevelled waist in Parisien brown - size 12.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Have Men become wussies around women?