Manliness of man

[Castro]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

but the solution does not lie in merging gender territories, so to say, and slurring distinctive manly attributes, saaxiib. So as you can see, mine was mere acknowledgement of the natural order, saaxiib.

I see you're still unrepentant and singing that old natural order tune. No amount of backpedaling can retract your earlier asinine statements. Give it up, dude. That natural order you speak of maintains the lowest of men superior to the highest of women, simply because of their manliness. It's disgusting in this day and age, or any day and age.

 

My beliefs and sentiments posted above were not done for applause. They are, in fact, the product of years and decades of observing the rotten status quo and understanding the reasons behind it. Alas, there's even hope for you and other manly men to see the light.

[-Serenity-]

Xiin + Kheyr. You’re both stating the obvious. We are talking about the characteristics that make a man – manly man (with reference to the article). This would mean something we can all agree women shouldn’t possess. Otherwise, its all a big fat blur of individual circumstances.

 

Clearly, the article holds an archaic viewpoint of what it is to be a man. And it seems sad that the progress and participation of women in societies is seen as inversely proportional to the manliness of man. (oh those poor men! )

 

Fortunately, you guys seem to be cutting off your noses to spite your faces, the more you write about these manly-man qualities. So less work for me to do here

 

Carry on.

 

*Hopes atleast Baashi will come back with something more than a commentator-y of the threads events*

[xiinfaniin]

Asinine statement, you said? Do I see you loose your balance and characterize my solidly seated views on this issue as asinine? Are you brandishing your newly acquired feminine sensitivities and discharging your emotions on us, saaxiib?

 

This article is about observed and real manly attributes and qualities. The feminists are in denial and get irritated by mere mention of them. In fact they think they have the same qualities and reject any differentiation based on them. And here you go, poor Castro, arguing and dragging us in to the women’s rights and stuff! Before the topic goes out of hand, let me concede one point; not all the manliness is good, but it sure is distinctively mannish. I see no reason why our Qalanjos have issue with that.

 

78%, is that all you have to chip in to this heated debate or you conveniently sacrifice our Shuuci man?

 

Waa ka haray haddaan lay maagin. Haddise lay maago;hadde ina-rag wax walba ka filo.

[Valenteenah.]

LoL @ Xiin. A bit underhanded, but I like your style of arguing. Not that it validates the issue of contention here. These 'manly' attributes u keep mentioning, which are supposedly unique to the man-animal, are a bit vague. Perhaps you should clarify them first. (And please don't say courage or leadership, coz that will just make me giggle).

 

 

NGONGE,

 

Now who is being a silly boy? (Take note of the use of 'boy').

[-Serenity-]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

78%

, is that all you have to chip in to this heated debate or you conveniently sacrifice our Shuuci man?

Is that my new name? Are you implying I'm not all there?

 

This article is about observed and real manly attributes and qualities

Name them.

7

: This would mean something we can all agree women shouldn’t possess

From there on, I will ‘chip in’. I’m not wasting my time on ‘strawman arguments’ like dear Viking.

[Baashi]

Horeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey! the forum is alive again. Views are different as always, opinions are strong, and unfortunately, irrelevant speeches penned to refute the straw man are indeed long and many. This makes me wonder how many of nomads have actually read the article in question?

 

Rahima, abaayadiis the points you have raised are on the money. However, it seems to me that you have misread the piece and nomads’ responses as well - especially the proponents of the so-called manly man.

 

Aero, baayo cidlaad ka diday ee easy with the been guurka. If you read the piece very carefully, the author is for women’s rights 100%. However, in his estimation, (and the man’s credentials of being from Harvard should give some of you a pause in dismissing his opinions as being silly), he thinks that the women’s participation in aggression and other activities men are known to engage in are not “equalâ€. Now you can disagree everything he had said in the piece however for the interest of good discussion on the subject please cut the cyber aggression to tolerable limits.

 

Castro, you are something sxb. I can see that you are a great defender of women’s rights. I commend you for the thoughtfulness. It wouldn’t be farfetched to say that you have somehow overlooked the distinction the author seems to be making between maleness and manliness. Is there a difference?

 

Khayr and Xiin, I can see where you are coming from. I also see our friends here are desperately trying to put you in a box in which you hardly fit. Because of your religious orientation, I am sure you would agree with what our cyber acquaintance penned in her post. If that is the case, this loud noise our friends are making is in vain for you are 100% for the rights and honor of women. Where is the misunderstanding stemming from?

 

Il Capo di Capo Signore Ngonge, stars and other cosmic objects are unisex. I don’t recall instances where they are exclusively designated to females.

 

7 of 9, the burden of proof so to speak is on you dhuubo. You see phrases and statements quoted out of context and in isolation won’t cut it. At this point, it will be beneficial for all of us to agree on what the author is actually saying here.

[Valenteenah.]

Originally posted by Baashi:

Now you can disagree everything he had said in the piece however for the interest of good discussion on the subject please cut the cyber aggression to tolerable limits.

I don't believe I was being aggressive, but for the 'interest of good discussion on the subject' consider it cut.

[Baashi]

^Classy. I like your style

[Castro]

Originally posted by Baashi:

Where is the misunderstanding stemming from?

Baashi, there is no misunderstanding. Thinly veiled sexist rhetoric that hides behind seemingly innocuous but dangerous labels as manly man are unacceptable. And when all else fails, brother Khayr brings out the holy book, just in case we might scatter and renounce our earlier arguments. Please.

 

The problem here is that we understand each other, not the contrary.

[Baashi]

Amigo Castro,

Have you honestly read the article in its entirety? What is the thesis the author seems to be advancing in this piece?

 

Btw, what is the difference, as the author sees it, between manliness and maleness?

 

Many of us hold the Holy Book in high regard. I expect you to show respect for our convictions. It's deep held conviction and no amount of cyber exchanges will come near to settle the disputes we may have on this score. Politeness, respect, and gentlemanly engagement is in order here. This is brotherly request from my part.

[Johnny B]

Bashi (garaad), now that you heated it up it´s easier to bash the weaker gender to boost our questioned manliness.

 

I´d like to make it spicy and mention the feared male qualities that many "girlie" men here failed to mention.

 

1:A manly man,never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

2:A manly man,must understand another man a lot and like him very little. but must love a girlie girl a lot and not try to understand her at all.

3:A manly man,when married to a girlie girl live longer than single manly men, becouse they know how long it takes b4 the next one takes his place.

 

4:A manly man,when rejected by a girlie girl beleives that she really wants him , but playing hart to get.

 

5:A manly man calls his own name when having an orgasm.

 

 

Now the only tough girlie girl i know is a one who rolls her own tampons.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Baashi:

This is brotherly request from my part.

Request received, considered and accepted.

 

Edited: Upon re-reading the article, I have not seen any distinction made between manliness and maleness. Care to point me to the paragraph you have in mind, Baashi?

[-Serenity-]

^ :confused:

 

Baashi, I’ve always found some of ur implicit references to be far more insidious than your explicit ones. Pray tell what was remotely offensive that Castro wrote about the Quran? Telling some1 not to use religion to drive a ‘strawman argument’ isn’t blasphemy…it’s high reverence.

[Baashi]

^^Classy. This is what I'm talking about. Hear hear nomads when manly men engage in the spirit of advancing cyber friendship, they come through

 

Johnny (call me garaad again sonny), watch out for 7 of 9. She is the one that dismisses what you have outlined as a BULL

 

7 of 9, Nothing wrong there.

[xiinfaniin]

lol@Aeronwen (Arraweelo?) and 7 of 9.

 

How about aggressiveness and emotionally insensitive? Does it not sound mannish enough?

 

And no dear Falxado, you are always wholly there. That was a little division deduction : 7/9 ~~.78.