11-10-2018, 02:09 AM
(11-09-2018, 03:08 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:(11-09-2018, 11:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:(11-08-2018, 09:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: It's easier to get a feminist if one isn't a male chauvinist. Feminist women could be more desirable -- they might have higher incomes, be better educated, be better at conversation, and be able to participate in shared activities.
Sure, but this is not an answer to the question:
Why aren't millennials as macho as the previous civic generations?
It still could be that men are adjusting to the realities of gender in America, and that there has not been a Crisis that has yet empowered men while leaving women out of roles that rely upon brute-force construction or combat as did the Crisis Eras from the Armada Crisis on.
If the Crisis is dealing with a President trying to rule as a despot, then women are already the leaders of the resistance. Think of the Argentine response to the collapse of credibility of the military junta.
Quote:Actually I don't like macho blokes at all, I see them as potential bullies, but I want to answer this question in light of the generational theory.
My observation, too. Bullies and rapists. Men who put their maleness as the center of their personhood are usually lacking something. It's almost as bad as being proud of being white.
This means there should be a change in the implied social contract between the sexes. I'm OK with this, btw. Aside from reproductive differences, there is to be no consideration of whether a person is male or female. This means the most qualified person should get the job. Also, it means that all other interactions besides stuff like mating, that a person should or should not intervene in activities between others based on sex. For example, if a person is getting beat up, the proper response is to call 911 and nothing else. Males who rely on out of date customs may get #Metoo'd or called a chauvinist pig. Likewise, if local custom allows for door opening, then it's ok to do that, regardless of sex. And... yes, nobody should be proud of being <insert race pronoun here>. It is for that reason that terms like "people of color" is divisive. If someone says that "people of color are X". Then that implies that people who are not people of color are ! X. Discussions framed as such are propaganda, since they focus on outcomes, not underlying factors. For example, the war on drugs, along with police for profits results in more blacks ending up in prison. Another factor for a higher proportion of blacks in prison relates to mutual distrust amongst a large number of the black population and police forces. I'm sure there are other underlying factors as well. Outright racism / distrust among other populations towards blacks may also be a factor so a reason should be given for this phenomenon. In this case, data indicating high crime levels associated with majority black zip codes may foster this sort of fear. So here, reasons for this high crime need to be discussed. These reasons should be viewed in the manner in which assorted environmental/social conditions lead to high crime. IOW, it's not really the population per say, but conditions that act on the population that do so.
---Value Added 