42 1

Do you think that men have become more feminine recently?

It might be just me but nowadays it seems men are becoming more feminine, doing their hair every day, dressing up, buying fancy shoes, talking about their feelings a lot, etc.

I used to look at those guys in school and the girls loved them. But they were so dumb and weak. Useless in a fight and not much substance in their brains.

We had a program in my school called the "rite journey" where boys and girls would select a mentor from family friends and they would do things together on the weekend. My mentor took me sailing. It was a program to basically give the kids good role models who they could confide in that were not their parents.

During a rite journey class my teacher (A South African man) met us at the door and separated all of the boys into 3 groups. At first I was confused but then he said. "We are going to talk about what attracts different women. Which really interested me since I'd never had a girlfriend and at that time because the bullies spread rumors about me, everyone in the school feared me.

So he said "You boys in group 1 are what western women look for. You are feminine, express your feelings and take time to make yourselves look good, generally women in the USA, UK, Australia will look for men like you. You boys in group 2, you are borderline. You are moderately strong, diligent in your studies, respectful and intelligent. You are what women who want a high quality of life look for, generally women in Asia, North America and Europe look for men like you. You boys in group 3, you're the physically strong ones, the work horses. You work hard, you're tough and most of all you exude strength. Women in South America, Africa and some less developed Asian or European nations will prefer you."

He explained that the reason for this was because women's priorities were different. Some women wanted emotional security, others wanted financial security and some needed physical security. So the priorities would start at group 3 and move to 2 then move to 1. If women no longer needed a man to protect them they would move to group 2, and once they had financial security from either a job or an alternative income (a man, parents or alimony) they would move to look for men in group 1. The most attractive males.

This approach seemed to make sense to me but since I was a group 2 but my teacher said at the end "You are a bit of a mix between group 2 and 3" to which I responded "I guess I'll see you in South Africa for my wedding them" Since he was a bible fearing christian. Still he was a great man.

So, is this analogy accurate or do you think that more feminine men are what all women want regardless of their personal situations?

  • 4 votes
  • 26 votes
  • 11 votes
  • 9 votes
  • 7 votes
  • 4 votes
Lancer 7 Jan 31

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I express my feelings. I think that is why women like me and men don't

twill Level 7 Jan 31, 2018

European men used to wear makeup, wigs, and high heels. Viking men wept openly.

All that stuff is arbitrary and cultural, and varies by time period.

People have different inclinations, and different preferences. Culture amplifies some and suppresses others. But its always shifting.

There will always be "metrosexual" pretty boys and tough "alpha males" (icky misnomer), just like there will always be tomboys and girly girls. When one is en vogue we'll see more of it, and less of its foil. But they're always there.

Classifying young people like that, to their faces, is icky. Predicting what women want is stereotypical ick. The whole thing is just ick.

People like to comb their hair and wear smelly stuff and pretty clothes, or they don't care that much about it. That fits into the "masculine" or "feminine" paradigm of the culture and era to whatever degree. If you're lucky, what you prefer is what culture tells you you should prefer. Sometimes you just do what culture tells you, with or without thinking about your own inclinations. If you're unlucky, your preference does not match culture's expectation, and you suffer consequences for following your desires.

"Masculine" and "feminine" are not absolutes. History and cross-cultural studies bear this out.

Desire and attractiveness are not absolutes. Talking to a bunch of people will bear this out.

Remove or factor for the lens of culture and era, and I bet you'll see fairly consistent incidence of "girly men" (and "manly women" ) as well as attraction for each type.

Reducing it down to one pat scheme is...not something I would advise.

You are completely brilliant.

@KKGator Shoosh--you'll make my head swell...bigger than it already is πŸ˜‰

What she said.

Keep in mind the poster is only 19 and we all struggle to make sense of the world. Categorizing is what humans do.


This wasn't the point of the post.

The conclusion was "different women in different situations will generally prefer different men who can meet their different needs and wants"

Also what's wrong with classifying men into categories? We do it all the time, it's called statistical data collection. We look to see if there is a pattern.

I'm not talking about looks, I'm talking about physical ability and a mans morals and values. In the way that I think a man should focus on improving his mind and body in equal proportion. Aiming for the group 2. However this is not the case in the world.

Having and expressing feelings is fine, but we must also value the idea that controlling ones feelings must take priority. This usually gets women in trouble more than men. Controlling emotions is difficult for normal people, I understand that. But if we all thought using emotion first then we wouldn't get anywhere.

Those who think only with emotion will certainly repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. Only logical thought will result in success.

Also this is about "Needs" vs "wants". Some people in less fortunate countries don't have the luxury that 1st world women have at the moment. They need men to protect them from others because they don't have a natural advantage at defending themselves. Only through training or instruction can women have an advantage over men in a fight. Unless of course the man was a weakling.

I was going to say much the same; I didn't have to!


No, men are not becoming more feminine. Heterosexism is waning. The worship of hypermasculinity is at the beginning stages of dying out.

β€œ[…heterosexism is not just a personal value system, it is a tool in the maintenance of gender dichotomy. In other words, through heterosexism, any male who refuses to accept the dominant culture’s assignment of appropriate masculine behavior is labeled early on as a β€œsissy” or β€œfag” and then subjected to bullying. Similarly, any woman who opposes male dominance and control can be labeled a lesbian and attacked.

The potential of being ostracized as homosexual, regardless of actual sexual attractions and behaviors, puts pressure on all people to conform to a narrow standard of appropriate gender behavior, thereby maintaining and reinforcing our society’s hierarchical gender structure.”


Well said!

Preech!! Thanks, Victoria, well put.

Exactly! Perfect, Victoria, thank you!


I think it's all a load of utter bullshit.



Why perpetuate these stereotypes? Stronger is no better than smarter. Being manly/Feminine is an identity of division. Besides, I do not think it is more prevalent, just more acceptable. No one should have to hide who they believe they are for fear of ridicule. That is the way of simple minded theists.

All I'm saying is that some qualities of people benefit society and others weaken it's foundations. Strong leadership has always been predominately a masculine quality. If we lose qualities like these (which we have) then our society and our leaders will not be able to make decision with integrity and honor (which they can't)

I would have to disagree. Masculinity leadership is cultural conditioning. This belief is not found in all cultures. Take native Americans for instance. I believe that the idea that there has to be centralized concentration of power such as a head of household all the way up to a ruler or even leading military force in the world is a idea brought about by religion and used by those whom want to rule others they feel superior over. It is their way or punishment. Real progress will only ever be obtained when we together. All sexes and all ethnics working as one race. The human race.


Technically, you're right. Many men do take time to make sure they look their best. I mean, I'm hardly what an old-fashioned person would call effeminate, but I comb my hair to make it behave, and I know what colours look good on me, and I dress accordingly. Is there a problem with that? I don't think so. Of course, buying insanely expensive clothes and shoes makes no sense to me no matter what gender you are.

As for talking about your feelings, what the hell is wrong with that? Whining about them and seeking attention is, again, annoying and confusing regardless of gender. But those who are open and honest about their feelings and thoughts, and aren't scared of seeming weak for betraying that they do in fact feel emotion, are fine by me. I don't see this as being feminine. It's just being human.

I never said anything was wrong with it and I agree with what you say.

I was just saying that in the future there may come a time when certain qualities are thought to be more important than others and when that time comes, society may be in trouble.

As long as there are masculine qualities, regardless of if men or women have them. Then society will be fine. But if not, then history will repeat

@Lancer I think the point that you're missing is that your "masculine" and "feminine" categories are arbitrary. They have no basis in fact. Being aggressive,or sensitive or vain or smart aren't feminine or masculine,they're traits that exist in all humans to varying degrees and there is a lot more variability between individuals than between sexes. Your basic premise is faulty.


The dynamic of so called masculinity has changed and so to some people it may seem as though men have become more feminine. But the outdated ideas of toxic masculinity (Think Gaston from Beauty and the Beast) have become seen as outdated and even dangerous to a degree and have begun to slip from our culture.

And thank goodness they have.


You have a concept of "masculinity" and "femininity" that is completely based in arbitrary cultural norms. There are cultures all over the world where--as with birds--it is the men who dress decoratively to attract women.

There is nothing inherently "feminine" about dressing attractively. And the idea that women are only attracted to men because they want some form of "security" is ignorant and sexist as hell.

Sorry--I''m seeing now that you're just 19. Please look into learning more about gender roles--it will help you in pondering these questions and in seeking relationships, too.

I am not saying dressing up is wrong or that adopting different gender roles is wrong. What I'm saying is that different women from different parts of the world will have different qualities that they will look for in a man.

If you live in a war zone. Would you want a beautiful woman with zero combat experience as your wife or would you want a female soldier (very rare indeed) as your wife to help protect you and your children?

It is a simple and logical pros/cons process of selecting what you need over what you want. Needs are primary and wants are secondary. That's how things work.

So just think logically about this. Many species like deer, goats, kangaroos, snakes, rhinos, etc. Fight for dominance for the right to breed with females. They are usually the top of their respective food chains (relatively). They demonstrate their strength and earn the right to breed with the females. So your example on birds is the same as my example on other mammals. Different species look for different qualities, like different women look for different qualities. This is fact.

Humans are vastly more diverse and adaptable than "snakes and kangaroos". Your model is badly oversimplified.

@Atheopagan It's the same type of model you used.

Anyway I don't really mind this change. I'll still raise my kids to be strong humans, regardless of their gender. Because weakness only breeds weakness, and I will not allow my children to grow up to become victims.

All I was asking with this question was "do different situational problems require different solutions" to which most people have said "No, there is no different situation where a woman needs a man" in which they are wrong.

"In which they are wrong"? That's a lot of certainty and hubris for a 19-year-old. Perhaps you can be open to the idea that people with more experience than you have may know something you don't?

Lancer, you right that you didn't say guys dressing nice is wrong, but in actuality you DID say these guys you see dressing up are stupid, or at least act stupid, so you absolutely implied what you have just denied. I shudder to think what you mean by planning to raise your kids strong. Strong does not mean insensitive, but too many seem to think that being sensitive to other people's feelings and being able to express oneself genuinely, without copping a mask of adopted "tough-guy"image is somehow weak. That is a very unfortunate perspective.


Haha, I knew it. I deliberately marked off it offended me assuming mine would be the only vote. About 5-10 years ago, many young guys went "metro-sexual" waxing their chests, shaving their legs and such. Think about it, why would young males do these apparently feminine things? Only one reason, because that is what the young females preferred.
Take all these fashion and style issues away and yes, I really do think men have taken on more female roles and activities. I don't think it makes them more feminine, just shows how times have changed. How many dads look after kids now? In developed countries the world has changed, we are not hunters, warriors, men have become nurturers as well. I have raised/partially raised over 20 kids, only 2 are biologically mine. I have the local pre-school and play group kids one day a week really kills the macho image when every second toddler in town calls out to you and brings their friends or parents up to chat all the time. A guy I work with has another group on another day, "Toddler Tunes" he is 49, I am 59. He is lucky, in a long term relationship with a pretty younger lady. Teaching ecology to toddlers doesn't rate up there as a masculine occupation.

When my son was in pre school, I helped out at a party with my wife there also. If I was not the only Dad, i was certainly the only involved one ( with the kids). It was weird tho....the moms just gave me bad vibes.......what was I doing there?

Buzz off mommas, I'm hanging out with my son. Go crawl back into your caves Bitch Moms!

You make a good point.
My greatest teacher was a man who changed me from an isolated loner into one of the most intelligent and disciplined students in his class. So I can wholeheartedly say that being a teacher is one of the most important roles in society. It sets kids on the path to either success or failure.


There is so much wrong on so many levels with this entire description that it is impossible to address it all. But just for starters, ...strong only equals masculine subjectively. You said your mentor was a strong, god-fearing, great man. Those terms have nothing to do with one another. All men and women have some masculine and some feminine components to our character. To try to sharply divide the genders and only emphasize their differences while rewarding gender conformity is not only prejudiced, but also prevents people from being fully developed human beings. It is a misguided attempt to straight-jacket people into narrow gender roles, enforced by fear of social rejection. Plus, those gender roles are subjective, anyway, varying widely from one culture to the next. What you'd call masculine in one culture, another would laugh at you for. The whole premise of your questions is skewed with a particular bias, a quite pronounced one. I don't blame you. You clearly indicated you were taught these things by people with an agenda. But you certainly can learn better, just as I and many here have learned a better way than the prejudiced religious fables we were raised on.

Have a look at Bear Grylls The island. It shows what really happens to men and women when you leave them alone to fend for themselves.

Strength is only masculine in the sense that historically men would fight and die trying to protect their wives and children. Only recently have women begun to embrace this masculine quality.

If strength is subjective then why do people laugh when a woman abuses a man and they are angry when a man abuses a women for doing the exact same thing? They think the woman is weaker and therefore is the victim, but when the reverse occurs people assume the man is aggressive and undisciplined.

All I'm saying is that different women have different priorities when it comes to selecting a partner. Women are selective and they think about what they want. For women who need protection it is a strong man, for women who have protection and want economic security it is an intelligent hardworking man and for women who have both protection and economic security, they want a physically attractive man.

That is how different women in different countries think.

Strength is subjective in the sense that there is more than just physical strength. There is stength of character. Wisdom is a strength. Skill at diplomacy and empathy and ease at relating to people with different needs are strengths. In a modern civilization, the notion that physical strength is still the primary trait to be valued is obsolete.

You are absolutely right about women looking for various things in prospective mates. But that is also because of varied life experiences and most certainly varied socialization. The fact of a particular woman being attracted to a certain kind of man does NOT mean that is a good, or even a safe choice for her. I have talked to many women who chose "macho protector" men, only to find themselves controlled, denigrated, and sometimes abused by those same men.

If women are raised to encourage confidence in their abilities and are given equal opportunities by society to choose their own careers and to make their own choices, then they will have little reason to feel a need for anyone else to be their protector. The fact that many still feel that insecurity is a sexist black mark on society. What a refreshing concept! To think: Men and women as companions rather than meat market commodities!

@Lancer kid. That's a TV show. You know that's made to generate interest,ratings and revenue,right? Don't believe everything you see on TV.

@Blindbird I know it is. But when I was an army cadet I also saw how girls couldn't physically do the same as men.

When I was in school I found that most girls would choose art over materials (metal work and wood work). So they are naturally going to be reliant on a man to survive in a situation like that of Bear Grylls "the island".

Just saying, the island is a bunch of regular people. Showing how different they are.


Nonsense. There are as many reasons a woman is attracted to a man as there are women and men. There is something borderline homophobic about the whole notion.

Not even borderline, ...but agreed.

So if I you were in a hostile country where you could be attacked at any moment would you rather
A) a Ferrari with a nice spoiler and under chassis fluro lights
B) a Land rover with a .50 cal machine gun
C) an armored tank with .50 cal machine gun and 50mm main cannon

Because I suppose if it looks good then get the Ferrari right?
Decisions are made based on the situation. Many women live in different situations which is why they have different needs.

Lancer, your scenarios are ridiculous. Those aren't real-world situations for the vast majority of people. Your macho, paranoid frame of the world is just toxic masculinity: a term you really should familiarize yourself with.


I have a friend on Facebook that I went to high school with. She's agnostic and a feminist, we talk quite a bit about politics and religion.

Recently we got on the subject of feminism, admittedly a subject I'm not very educated in.
We talked about the obvious (to me anyway) unequal treatment of women in the workplace, but then she started to explain to me some of the things women go through that I would never have thought of on my own.

How men can treat them as objects and not as people. She told me sometimes she feels like she needs to put up an invisible barrier and be on guard against unwanted advances, only to be labeled a bitch.
Being worried about places she shouldn't go for fear of bodily harm, especially at night.
It was an eye-opener for me, it never occurred to me how different our lives can be.

So, I don't know if men are getting more feminine, or better educated.

If your friend wants women to be empowered then she would want to become stronger. Learning self defense, becoming aware of her surroundings, fighting back and winning. Those were masculine qualities, now they are more unisex qualities.

I'm assuming that your friend decided to do something about this, like self defense or personal non-lethal deterrents?

When I used to do karate, the junior class would be full of girls. Girls of Eastern European parents, because they knew that the world is a dangerous place and they wanted their girls to learn how to be strong enough to go through life with ease. Strength can be attained by women, it is there, as the saying goes. You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink.

Women shouldn't be worrying about things like this, they should see it as a problem and find a solution. Rise to the challenge and succeed. That is also a unisex quality.

My big sister was scared of the same things happening to her, so I offered to teach her self defense. She declined because she wanted to learn krav maga with her female friend. I saw it as more of a social thing than a self defense type training. Every night when she came home she would demonstrate a new move on me but she had no idea how a real fight worked because they didn't want the girls sparring and possibly getting injured. Even though the men fought all the time in training. This is the problem. Women aren't serious about defending themselves. They've been told that they are victims for so long that now they believe it.

I know 2 girls who are sisters. Their dad raised them like boys, they're basically tomboys but both of them are extremely intelligent and beautiful women. They also know how to defend themselves well. That's a quality I look for in a woman, strength. Intelligence and strength are the 2 most important things I would want in a partner, looks are secondary. This is my main point. We as a society have our priorities mixed up, we are concerned with looks rather than character.

@Lancer Well since you told me what she should do without knowing her or asking me about her, let me explain.

She is in her early fifties now, an activist, and she still takes self-defense classes mostly for the exercise now.

She had a traumatizing experience when we were in our early teens in jr. high that makes her very wary of authority figures still to this day.

Here is an excerpt from the story if you care to read it. In the late seventies, our school was illegally raided by police that were searching for drugs.

This is her story.

...The dogs were led up and down each aisle of the classroom, from desk to desk, and from student to student. Each student was probed, sniffed, and inspected by at least 1 of the 14 German shepherds detailed to the school. When the search team assigned to petitioner's classroom reached petitioner, the police dog pressed forward, sniffed at her body, and repeatedly pushed its nose and muzzle into her legs. The uniformed officer then ordered the petitioner to stand and empty her pockets, apparently because the dog "alerted" to the presence of drugs. However, no drugs were found. After petitioner emptied her pockets, the dog again sniffed her body and again it apparently "alerted." Petitioner was then escorted to the nurse's office for a more thorough physical inspection.

Petitioner was met at the nurse's office by two adult women, one a uniformed police officer. After denying that she had ever used marihuana, petitioner was ordered to strip. She did so, removing her clothing in the presence of the two women. The women then looked over petitioner's body, inspected her clothing, and touched and examined the hair on her head. Again, no drugs were found. 1 Petitioner was subsequently allowed to dress and was escorted back to her classroom.

If you care to read the entire story. go here.

In your friends case I agree that the police did not have the authority to conduct the search. However I do understand their reasons for doing so.

I'm a bit more liberal on drugs and alcohol in the way that I believe they are bad and kids should be informed of all the risks and shown the result of using certain substances. But ultimately, as long as it isn't hurting anyone else I believe individual drug use is alright. I'd never do it myself though.

Also I can see why she would be embarrassed and uncomfortable with her situation. The police seemed to have acted in a less than sensible manner. But I can't have an opinion on it since I wasn't there and I didn't witness anything first hand.

I am also very sceptical of authority figures. Governments and police are probably 2 things I fear the most apart from regular people. I respect police officers but I can't say I am fond of them or their work. I've generally had good experiences with police officers however I have heard of many instances where they overstep their bounds.

I concede that your friend had a traumatic experience however I don't quite see how this links to feminism. I understand she was traumatised and embarrassed but could you please explain further how this links to the topic of the post.

If not that's fine. I understand this may be a delicate issue that you may not want to discuss.

@Lancer "I concede that your friend had a traumatic experience however I don't quite see how this links to feminism. I understand she was traumatised and embarrassed but could you please explain further how this links to the topic of the post."

You understand?! Come back after strangers make you strip off your clothes in front of them so they can stick their fingers inside of you

As far as your not understanding how this links to feminism, go to my first comment where you told me how my friend should live her life.



The fact that you obviously believe in a gender binary automatically just makes this whole post trash. Gender is a spectrum. Men aren't becoming more feminine. People are actually and openly expressing themselves now without the fear of being tortured to death. Trans individuals have a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered still, but they aren't letting bigots keep them inside like they used to. People are simply expressing themselves for how they feel inside and if you don't like it I suggest you take a long walk off a short pier.

I see from the comments that you're only 19 but being young isn't an excuse to be ignorant and backward. I'm 22. Age has nothing to do with it. You're backward and ignorant because you're choosing to be. "God fearing" really? On a site literally called "agnostic"? Shut up.

Just relax there amigo, If you re read my post with objectivity then you might understand the point I'm trying to make.

Women in certain countries have different needs to women in other countries.
These needs determine the type of man they are attracted to out of necessity, not out of personal preference.

Gender only has 3 physical genders. Man, Woman and Hermaphrodite. That is how they are born. I have no problem with men becoming women or women becoming men. But to suggest that you can change the laws of biology to suit your preference is utterly absurd. Do you have a degree in human biology with any legitimate sources of evidence to back up your claim?

Also God fearing had nothing to do with it. The fact he was a christian has nothing to do with his opinion. This just shows that instead of reading and understanding the point of this post, you resorted to the childish tactic of name calling, finding the weakness in a persons character and not their argument. Attack the argument and not the person, if you can't then please refrain from insulting my teacher, he is a good man and I respect him.

Well said, and "about damned time"!


Is anyone else here bothered by the statement that this "Strong," "God-fearing" man mentoring these impressionable boys saw nothing wrong with publicly judging and labeling them as feminine or somewhat feminine? How about the fact that his categorization of them as to which of three groups they "belonged to" was decided by nothing more than his personal view of them? He apparently got to act as the unquestioned judge of who is "manly" and who is a sissy boy. I am appalled by how recklessly irresponsible that is. But he is "a great man," and he's "God fearing," so there is nothing to worry about? Wow!

Okay here is where I draw the line.

You have obviously shown how you dislike this person. Without even talking to them or seeing them in person. That is he height of arrogance and I will not allow a petty emotional human to insult someone who is a great teacher, man and father.

The god fearing part was a joke. Does being Christian automatically make you bad? I've met Muslims, Christians, Hindu's, etc. Yet none of them have been as judgemental as you have here today.

The whole purpose of the class was to tell us that different women generally don't all go after the same guy. Why is this so hard to understand?

If you think this is irresponsible then I challenge you to go live in South Africa for 30 years and see what it's really like. Then come back with your opinion on how you don't have to be strong to live in some of the worst places in SA. don't bother living in a walled compound, don't even touch a gun. Just live in a suburban house long enough and you'll probably be robbed. But that'd be the least of your worries.

So don't assume you know this man. By the looks of it he sounds much more reasonable than you.

Reading the whole thread and biting my tongue.I like the part where he said he know what women in other countries want

Lancer, to be fair, I do not hate this man I have never met. I am only responding to your characterization of him, which obviously is not complete. What I strongly disapprove of is specific teachings and actions as you have relayed them on this forum. That is all you have given us to go by. I recognize that people are far more complex than any one issue or opinion.

What drew my aggravation most was two-fold: Your wording repeatedly appears to imply the notion that masculine equals strength and feminine is the opposite of strength and therefore lesser, and the emphasis on broad generalizations of entire groups of people even by continent. The only way you can accurately say that men are more masculine in one country than another, even ignoring individual variance, is if you believe masculinity is a fixed, specific set of qualities that applies universally. It isn't, and it doesn't. Masculinity and Femininity are always going to be interpreted through culturally determined expectations and values. European men as a whole are not more or less masculine than American men, or South African men, for that matter. Their accepted templates for what masculinity is are just different.

Again, at a personal, an individual level, none of this should matter much. If you strive to reshape yourself to attract a mate, you may end up with someone who will not respect us for being yourself. That is a very unfortunate bargain to strike.

Yeah, I am bothered by the whole idea of dividing anyone into groups and then, using stereotypes to classify them.

@Lancer Based on what you wrote, I'm judging him and I don't have a problem doing so. If his purpose was to "tell us that different women generally don't all go after the same guy," all he had to do was to say, "different women generally don't all go after the same guy." He stereotyped not only types of men, but he stereotyped women across the globe. Not only that, but his idea of the American stereotype was way off base. On what research did he base his judgments? What types of studies were done to support his claims? His conclusions are gross generalizations.

@Gwendolyn2018 Life experience and observations. He said "generally" so your idea that he stereotyped all women in all countries is incorrect. Generally means "most not all" people.

Let's just use an example. In Somalia would you rather

  1. a good looking man who works out, looks after his hair and cares about your feelings
  2. a rich man who can somewhat defend himself and can support you financially
  3. a strong man who can physically defend you from the hordes of angry, armed, raping, terrorist extremist cannibals?

I would prefer someone who could keep me alive but that's just me.

You don't need a study to know the basic idea of "I want to be safe, who can keep me safe" or the concept of economics where NEEDS come before WANTS.

Of course they are generalizations. When you see a pattern you generalize in order to rationalize the data and come to a conclusion.

@Lancer I am 65 years old. I have been a college instructor for 16 years (18 if you count my time as a TA). I was a substitute and summer school teacher in California for seven years. I worked at Walmart for two years. I have three degrees (four if I count my AA). I was born in backwoods Oklahoma when it was a third world country; I was married for 25 years and I have met dozens and dozens of men as a single woman and have dated several of them. I say all of this because I have "been around," and one thing I have learned in my personal and academic life is to not generalize. I mark down students who generalize in their papers and I mark them down for not supporting their claims with research from experts.Your claims of generalizations and "patterns" are logical fallacies. I understand that "generally" means "most, not all," but there is no proof of even the "most." Saying "most" or even "many" is stereotyping; it is one reason why I say "some" when I discuss any segment of the population UNLESS there are studies to shown otherwise.

In your explanation, you give a scenario and say, "But that's just me," and you are right: that is just your opinion. But hey, step aside from Somalia and come back to the USA and the Western world. The claims that your "teacher" made are gross generalizations. I teach literature and to understand the literature, I have to know something about the history of the culture. The male as a provider has been the standard in the Western world for as long as recorded history. The paradigm has only begun to shift in modern times.

And as for the question about which man "I" would want in the scenario that you gave, I want the rich man because he can afford to take me out of the situation altogether. He does not have to defend himself because he can afford to hire someone to defend himself--or he build a fortress. A rich man can keep me safer than a poor man.

Generalizations and stereotypes based on life experience . . . but he never lived life as a woman, did he? Any scholar knows better to make such generalizations.

@Gwendolyn2018 My point is that the male isn't just the provider. Also you've missed the point. If you think this is a fallacy then I guess the economic model of "needs and wants" is a fallacy too.

As for the rich man, rich is relative. If an average somali man earns $2 a day and the other earns $5 then the 2nd man is rich relative to the first one. Unfortunately there are not many rich men in Somalia, just look at it. There are more strong men than there are rich men and there are no feminine men. Do you understand? There is low supply of rich men in Somalia and if they're rich, it's likely they are strong since they have to protect the wealth that they have stolen from others or accumulated by their hard work.

Most Africans and people who have been to Africa have observed this. It's not a trend, it is reality. Are you saying that men must live like women to understand women? If that's the case then women must live like men to understand men. Which they don't, because life as a man is hard. We have a much higher workplace death rate, suicide rate, injury from violent crimes, etc. The list goes on, men work like dogs to build up the world we live in and women should work on some of the high risk countries too, all for equality's sake.

Point is, we need strong men to protect not just women but the children of our societies. The weaker men become, the weaker society becomes.


Because all women want the same thing...??? No woman would ever consider a man shorter than she, or handsomer than she? Or who would want to be a stay at home dad while she slays corporate dragons? Get real!

The whole point of this is that women DON'T want the same thing.

It is an example of the Needs vs Wants economic model applied to relationships. There are some things you need from a relationship and some things you want.

Why is this so hard for people to understand. It's not about gender or "male privilege" it is about the idea that people should improve who they are mentally before improving themselves physically. The idea is to become a balanced person.

@Lancer, you write "The whole point of this is that women DON'T want the same thing." But your post says that women in different countries DO want the same type of man within the parameters of those countries. You even made a joke about it, ""I guess I'll see you in South Africa for my wedding them [sic]." The man generalized women in every country.

@Gwendolyn2018 No. I said due to women living in different circumstances which are predominant in similar social situations in certain countries, what they look for in a man will change based on those needs.

I don't want the same type of man in every country. I'm just discussing how due to the feminine nature of the modern western man, it's no wonder why men from other nations think we are weak.

As I said. It doesn't matter if a woman or man has masculine qualities, all that matters is that we have them so that we can have a balanced society. If we all become feminine then we throw society into an imbalance which we are in the process of doing.

Also the fact that you just used a JOKE as evidence is pretty poor form to be honest, I give that an intellectual score of 0.0

@Lancer Until you can stop spewing rhetoric and vague claims, I have no interest in discussing this with you any longer. You are intellectually bankrupt and use no support for your claims. "Also the fact that you just used a JOKE as evidence is pretty poor form to be honest, I give that an intellectual score of 0.0" Um, dude, YOU used the joke to make an example. You are laughable, but no joke.

And you seem to think (note I used "seem" ) to think that the culture being out of balance for centuries was no problem. Take one of my writing or literature courses and get educated on history and how to present an argument and how to support it.

@Gwendolyn2018 did you seriously miss the close bracket ) in your comment?

Also trusting an untrustworthy news source is not normal. Because we should all listen to what everyone says and believe them no matter what. When has the media ever lied to the public?

As far as "vague claims" goes. I mentioned a perfect example of blatant corruption and censorship yet you persist in believing that the ABC has the "truth" as one of its highest priorities.

Didn't your parents ever teach you how to think for yourself?

@Lancer Nope, I did not miss the closing parenthesis (it was not a bracket) but autocorrect somehow changed it into a smiley face. The edit feature shows that it is there--go figure. And again, I am not replying because you seem to have no understanding of anything I have written. You continue with the rhetoric, and I get enough of that in the papers that my first year college students and high school seniors write.


I like what @stinkeye_a and @VictoriaNotes said. I would add that I am becoming less masculine or, if you prefer, I am removing myself from what our society considers masculinity to be. Too many will see what I am doing as embracing femininity but that is a failure of imagination. Masculinity and femininity are not the only ways to socialize ourselves. Gender is mostly arbitrary and destructive, especially femininity, and trying to combine 2 unhealthy ways of being cannot create something healthy. Both of these gender roles need to be destroyed.

I've seen too many people with all kinds of personality traits to think that assertive, passive, nurturing, strict, emotional, stoic, etc. et al has anything to do with being born XX or XY!


Not voting, but have an opinion. It seems, to me anyway, that what used to be considered sissified, is now more common place among heteros. I'm not sure when I learned that women liked men in bright colors. Whenever I am trying to impress a woman, that's the way I go. Yet, there is that tough guy mentality, still. (see U.S. presidents, 45th) So, I may be more in touch with my fem side, but it is a conscious effort. Plus, I was never the strongest or fastest, but among the brightest and funniest. I learned to go with it.

I found my inner woman, as suspected, she is a lesbian.


Men are not becoming more feminine. More men are gaining the courage to confront the ridiculous expectations that society tries to impose on them. It's not anyone's duty to conform to someone else's standards.

JimG Level 8 Feb 11, 2018

That's fine. But would you maybe agree that there are some traditional masculine qualities that we need as a society? Like leadership, strength and integrity?

It doesn't have to be a man, it can be a woman who has these qualities. I just think they are important.

@Lancer Why are leadership, strength and integrity "masculine" traits? They are only masculine because patriarchal societies said (and still say) so. Sexist rhetoric.

@Lancer I don't think any of those is a masculine quality. I do believe that there are different societal expectations for men and women.
It's pathetic that women who exhibit leadership, show strength, or tell it like it is without pulling punches are "bitches," while men are admired for those traits. I had thought that was improving, but I am not so sure now.

@Gwendolyn2018 Well history says otherwise. Although there were sexist men in the past and currently at present. Men were ultimately the ones that took long sea voyages to explore unknown lands and push forward the age of colonial expansion. Women came afterwards when it was deemed "safe". This is natural for any society, send the men into danger and protect the women. The men exhibited strength, leadership and integrity in this sense.

They are masculine traits because more men exhibit them than women and they come more naturally to men than women. The reverse is true for feminine traits.

Also don't bring patriarchy into this. It's like a person who maxed out their credit card blaming the banks for their excessive spending and lack of self control.

Responsible and respectable women who exhibit these traits are commendable, the problem is that there aren't very many out there. There are some I have met and I respect them immensely, however there are many women who don't exhibit even one of these traits, on the contrary we can see many men who do have strength and leadership qualities, integrity is a rare quality regardless of gender so I will concede that point to you.


I am apparently the only one who finds this accurate at least for those young men of this generation. I talk to a lot of young people, this is my observation as well.

Nice to see another person with a good head on their shoulders.

You aren't alone...


I don't know if men are becoming more feminine or whether it's just more obvious. All I can say is that I personally do not like them, do not find them to possess even an iota of desirability. As a woman, I want a man who looks and acts like a man, and makes me feel feminine. I do not want a man who looks like a woman. I know that the definition of who looks and acts like a man is a personal thing; this is my take.

marga Level 7 Jan 31, 2018



No body's changing; men have simply emerged as individuals no longer tied to stereotipical roles.
When I was young I also had the impression that all girls wanted macho men and I tried to act accordingly, though I was never a very good actor.
There are so many types of women out there it would be hard to generalize about what kind of man they seek.
I love it when women say they are turned on by intellect.

Bottom line suggestion: for life to be worth living one must give up the role playing and seek liberation from all conditioning as they begin to understand how to be themselves regardless.

That is a nice sentiment and I agree with it.

I acknowledge that there are many different men and women in the world with different qualities that they would find attractive in their ideal partner.

I was mainly discussing how some people will want a partner who satisfies their needs before their wants.

I also think that as a society, we need to preserve some masculine qualities like leadership, integrity, self sacrifice, etc. If we do not, then society will not be able to function very effectively.


Lancer, you made a blatant negative and sweeping judgment near the start of your post, which is in part, I believe, why you have drawn such extensive criticism on this thread. Read your second paragraph again, where you call feminine males (however you interpret feminine) to be stupid and weak, and not much good in a fight. You went on and on emphasizing the value of being able to fight --in South Africa, even Somalia. Whether you meant it or not, your implication was that that was valuable, and softness, gentleness is not so much. So much bullshit. That is not intelligent, no matter how smart you keep telling all of us you are. What the fuck does it matter to men in the U.S. how lawless and dangerous life is in Somalia? We don't live there. Trying to act as if we were would not only be inappropriate, it would be dysfunctional. Why would your teacher describe men from different countries as being generally different based on location and then turn around and divide a group of boys in one place into three groups? Your whole post has implicitly argued for men striving to be tough guys. You argument is horse shit.


Another have expressed a distinct motivation of wanting to attract women. Nothing wrong with that. You also acknowledged that different women want different things. Again, I agree. But you seemed to accept your teacher/mentor's sweeping generalization that women of a given culture generally want the same thing in a man. He and you couldn't be more wrong. Trust me, you don't want to attract just any women. You want to attract women who are a good fit for YOU. you do that best by being yourself, not by trying to study and emulate qualities just to curry favor. Just BE.


I think it is all that oestrogen in the drinking water and environment turning us feminine from the inside out.

Haha. It's the hormones in the meat... must she mcdonalds.

Just jokes.

But it might be true. Since it even affects women. Girls have been having earlier periods and it's odd.


The gender lines are constantly being eroded, and I think it's brilliant. Sex makes sense to me: it's biology, it's universal the world over, it's who sticks what where in bed, it's how babies are made (or not.)

But gender is just the cultural nonsense that we traditionally attach to sex. Men can be builders but not nurses; men can drink beer from a pint glass, but not a half pint one; men must be competitive and like aggressive sports; men must shun things like embroidery and flower arranging; men must be the main breadwinner in a mixed sex relationship. And of course women are expected to be the opposite.

But society's been gnawing away at it for a long time. None of the above rules are anywhere near as rigid as they used to be. You'll find people breaking them all of the time.

Gender has had its day. It serves no useful purpose in modern society, and mostly creates artifical divides. It's a lot like religion.

There are only 3 genders. Physical genders.

Men and women can be whatever they want. I'm talking about the qualities that they prioritise in their lives being a possible problem. As in a person needs morals and values before they try improving their looks.

Gender is very important in modern society. It will never "have its day"

Gender isn't physical. Are you sure you're not confusing it with sex?

To piggyback on Nicole's comment, gender is not biological sex. The two usually overlap extensively, but they are definitionally different. When you confuse the two, you leave no room for people don't fit neatly into just one box. Aside from transgendered and genderqueer folks, whom naysayers might dismiss as arguably choosing to be that way, don't forget there are various varieties of biologically intersex people. Hermaphrodites as well as anatomically single-sex but chromosomally mixed people. Yes, they are relatively rare, but not as rare as you might want to think, and they are people, too, not disposable. When anyone tries to teach that strongly defined and separated gender norms are desirable, they are basicly spitting in the face of the minority who can't simply choose to fit neatly into a pidgeonhole. No one should have to drastically twist their own natural identity to suit other people's preferences. It is not only unfair; it is unhealthy psychologically. Try to have a little respect for diversity.


Sex role stereotyping is mostly a social construct.

I have always been in touch with my 'feminine' side. I have always hated stereotypes - I was stereotyped at school and through most of my life.

There will always be men who do feminine stuff and women who do blokey stuff. Children left to their own devices will play with the same toys - it's us as adults that impose their roles on them. And it gets worse, the stereotypes are now everywhere and information technology just spreads it further and wider.

As for attracting a mate, if you are lucky you will find one that appreciates you for who you are, not what some life coach tells you that you should be.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:19957
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.