Are american men being feminized?

[rcarraher]

That's just what I was thinking.

I'll answer this after my soaps and Oprah

 

[GregC]

This thread is so revealing. Many have answered the question with out answering the question lol.

That's just what I was thinking.

Passive-aggressiveness doesn't seem very manly.

 

[R D Maynard]

Is our cuture (sic) changing as technology alters our daily lives? Duh. Does that mean that the roles that all people engage in are different from those of previous generations? Well, yeah, duh, again. It's hard to have a generation of cowboys when the economy demands office jobs.

Cowboys, as well as most men and women up until a few generations ago, were capable of handling situations that most of us are completely unprepared for. Fixing a car, building a house, growing and preparing food, dressing a wound, defending ourselves and our families - these were all skills that the average person needed to live. The problem isn't confusion of gender identity, it's our total dependence on technology and the service economy. We manufacture very little of the goods we are offered for consumption and what we do build is often considered substandard to offshore products.

How long can a society which produces nothing but information and ways to process and present it exist? I think we're becoming Eloi.

 

[fdeck]

Someone I know visited a rural area in Turkey where the women did all of the work, from farming to raising kids, and the men spent all day in the tea shops discussing "business."

 

[Thunderscreech]

I think we're becoming Eloi.

not quite. That story was the caste system of late Victorian England. If nothing else, we're just making ourselves stupider by having more information.

But, there's always a breaking point. soon the internet will be old and no one will want to use it anymore.

 

[Unrepresented]

Cowboys, as well as most men and women up until a few generations ago, were capable of handling situations that most of us are completely unprepared for. Fixing a car, building a house, growing and preparing food, dressing a wound, defending ourselves and our families - these were all skills that the average person needed to live. The problem isn't confusion of gender identity, it's our total dependence on technology and the service economy. We manufacture very little of the goods we are offered for consumption and what we do build is often considered substandard to offshore products.

How long can a society which produces nothing but information and ways to process and present it exist? I think we're becoming Eloi.

There will always be "lowest common denomenator" skills that the incoming generation will lose. I think we agree. Fixing a car would've likely been thought of as service economy work just a few generations earlier, while something more meaningful as horsemanship would've been considered fundamental. This is one of the drawbacks of a society that flourishes on skill speciailization, it does so at the expense of uniformity and fundamentals. It does so in exchange for a stronger diversity of skills, however. It's a strategy that seems to be working at the moment.

 

[L-A]

There will always be "lowest common denomenator" skills that the incoming generation will lose. I think we agree. Fixing a car would've likely been thought of as service economy work just a few generations earlier, while something more meaningful as horsemanship would've been considered fundamental. This is one of the drawbacks of a society that flourishes on skill speciailization, it does so at the expense of uniformity and fundamentals. It does so in exchange for a stronger diversity of skills, however. It's a strategy that seems to be working at the moment.

It's a strategy that works but is fundamentally more fragile. Basically, we're all speculating on the availability of other specialists whom we do not know, but depend on.

 

[Unrepresented]

It's a strategy that works but is fundamentally more fragile. Basically, we're all speculating on the availability of other specialists whom we do not know, but depend on.

More fragile as an individual or more fragile as a society?

I would imagine that a diverse society would be able to handle many problems that a uniform one wouldn't. The plague for instance, would likely not ravage our modern society of scientists, doctors, and other speciailists nearly as badly as it did a much more fundamental group from the middle ages who were more adept that life's "necessities" like tending to crops, and fabricating basic tools.

 

[R D Maynard]

Remember Y2K? The Western world was in a panic. If anything, we're more vulnerable now to a disruption in telecommunications then we were 9 1/2 years ago. What, for example, would happen to India's economy if the Internet went south?

But getting back to the OP's original point - here's some food for thought:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Thunderscreech]

Remember Y2K? The Western world was in a panic. If anything, we're more vulnerable now to a disruption in telecommunications then we were 9 1/2 years ago. What, for example, would happen to India's economy if the Internet went south?

But getting back to the OP's original point - here's some food for thought:

Invalid Link Removed

Sean Connery waxed in Zardoz

 

[hbarcat]

Cowboys, as well as most men and women up until a few generations ago, were capable of handling situations that most of us are completely unprepared for. Fixing a car, building a house, growing and preparing food, dressing a wound, defending ourselves and our families - these were all skills that the average person needed to live.

Yeah, I was just telling someone the other day that it's too bad that no one knows how to fix cars anymore - not like in the pioneer days of the settlers when every family had its own shop in the garage behind the log cabin.

 

[hbarcat]

Remember Y2K? The Western world was in a panic. If anything, we're more vulnerable now to a disruption in telecommunications then we were 9 1/2 years ago. What, for example, would happen to India's economy if the Internet went south?

Nobody that I knew was in a panic over Y2K. IT professionals took necessary steps to prevent problems in advance and the general public treated it as a joke - except for journalists who hyped the crap out of it to sell newspapers to kooks.

 

[bassteban]

If *feminized* means to have a nice woman rubbed all over you, I'm all for it.

 

[THand]

Yeah, I was just telling someone the other day that it's too bad that no one knows how to fix cars anymore - not like in the pioneer days of the settlers when every family had its own shop in the garage behind the log cabin.

LOL...

Yeah that's why Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, his F150 wouldn't start.

He thought the Santa Anna was bringing jumper cables

 

[popinfresh]

There's a book about chemicals getting into our bodies that is drastically changing the birth rate of males, as well as screwing with the genes. Can't remember the name but i'll look into it.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

No. Why do you ask?

 

[L-A]

More fragile as an individual or more fragile as a society?

I would imagine that a diverse society would be able to handle many problems that a uniform one wouldn't. The plague for instance, would likely not ravage our modern society of scientists, doctors, and other speciailists nearly as badly as it did a much more fundamental group from the middle ages who were more adept that life's "necessities" like tending to crops, and fabricating basic tools.

I mean that we speculate on the availability of specialists that will bring us (and solve problems created) by the tools one uses for one's work but can't make or maintain by oneself. That makes society able to accomplish much more than a single individual, but, just like your body would fail without a liver, certain elements of the said society are vital to not only its great achievements, but the mere solidity of it.

That's my vaguely generalized view of it, at the very least.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Remember Y2K? The Western world was in a panic.

Much--maybe most--of the Western world wasn't in a panic, though, and for good reason.

 

[hbarcat]

More fragile as an individual or more fragile as a society?

I would imagine that a diverse society would be able to handle many problems that a uniform one wouldn't. The plague for instance, would likely not ravage our modern society of scientists, doctors, and other speciailists nearly as badly as it did a much more fundamental group from the middle ages who were more adept that life's "necessities" like tending to crops, and fabricating basic tools.

I don't think that diversity has as much to do with it as society being scientifically knowledgeable. Hundreds of years ago, plagues spread unnecessarily because people didn't know about germs and how to prevent them from traveling from one human to another. Now, there are enough people aware of how pathogens are spread that plagues are less likely to annihilate a significant fraction of the population of a continent. Maybe a few percent will die, but in times past, 30-40% were wiped out.

 

[capnsandwich]

No, I think feminine men are being Americanized.