The Regressives are going after masculinity bigly

No. I was pointing out your hypocrisy of how you see gays. I'm shocked it went over your head. Funny how your high horse is convienent.
How do you see them, when you say faggot bro :popcorn:
I stopped doing that, bro.
Did the time you stopped, coincide with the time you lost your bigotry for gay folks, or what...


this is special :popcorn:
I'm not the bigot, bro. You are. :smile:
It was predicatble youd dodge the direct question, and will continue to do so :thup:

Thanks.
No. You asked a false question, bro.
 
How do you see them, when you say faggot bro :popcorn:
I stopped doing that, bro.
Did the time you stopped, coincide with the time you lost your bigotry for gay folks, or what...


this is special :popcorn:
I'm not the bigot, bro. You are. :smile:
It was predicatble youd dodge the direct question, and will continue to do so :thup:

Thanks.
No. You asked a false question, bro.
Oh, then maybe youll care to explain the connotation of you using the word faggot in the first place.

Prolly not though, huh?
 
They just REFUSE to take these issues head on.

Understandable. It gets tougher when I provide proof.

Issues you make up and then find obscure wackos to support what you've made up in your head?

The BSA is finally allowing girls for one reason...they need money. I'm sorry it came 40 years too late for me, but your idea for why girls want into the BSA is pure, unadulterated bovine feces. Girls want to be Eagle Scouts, period.
There is no equivalent in Girl Scouts?

No. The Girl and Boy Scouts are completely different with different goals and programs.
That is entirely the fault of the Girl Scouts.
 
Masculinity
rehost%2F2016%2F9%2F14%2Fa7da81a3-7685-4218-87ac-1adb69796492.jpg
 
Mac, you kicked ass with this thread and it really saddens me that a person who is such a great advocate for traditional values voted for that evil bitch Hillary Clinton.

The repugnant vermin who followed in that degenerate slug G.T.'s slime trail are everything wrong with this country.
 
The following was taken from Mac's first linked article about "toxic masculinity," describing the traits of "toxic masculinity":
  • Loving sex, but not really liking women.
  • Violence is the way “men” solve problems.
  • Dominance over women.
  • Believing that they are entitled to success due to their gender.
  • Labeling men who don’t subscribe to this mindset as “Beta.”
I would have to ask whether Mac supports this sort of behavior. Is his article a complaint that men aren't being allowed to act this way? Just what exactly is he complaining that he is being told to do or to not do? Or that someone is doing to him? We live in a society with upwards of 320 million people in it, and we all have the right to expect decent and respectful conduct from everyone.
"Toxic masculinity" is a strawman used by bigots.
 
Masculinity only frightens the weak.

Boy Scout membership is slipping because there are now alternatives whose memberships are growing.

Hyper masculinity is is a coping mechanism for the insecure.

Define hyper-masculinity.
why don't you ask the OP to define "masculinity" first.

Because I choose to ask Hutch.
cart-before-the-horse-small.png
 
Mac, you kicked ass with this thread and it really saddens me that a person who is such a great advocate for traditional values voted for that evil bitch Hillary Clinton.

The repugnant vermin who followed in that degenerate slug G.T.'s slime trail are everything wrong with this country.
yo mac, you are reeling in the white nationalist trumptards. be proud.
 
Are you serious?
That's your entire premise.

The Regressives are going after masculinity bigly

.
So somehow you don't see a difference between what you're trying to accomplish, and whether it's being accomplished.

Well, there's nothing I can do about that. The distinction there should be pretty clear, for anyone whose eyes are open.
So somehow you don't see a difference between what you're trying to accomplish, and whether it's being accomplished.

The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is to gain some clarity on your position in this thread.

I don't see how using the decision of the BSA
as an example of the "emasculization of America" is valid when you just admitted that you have no idea if this "is emasculating to the boys in this case".

Well, there's nothing I can do about that. The distinction there should be pretty clear, for anyone whose eyes are open.

Nothing is clear here. Not even to you apparently.
Well, then we just don't communicate well. I'll be happy to take the blame.

The point is that the Regressives are trying to dilute and minimize masculinity.

Is it working? I don't know. We'll see.

If that still isn't clear enough, I just can't help you. Blame me.
.


You're not very good at this.

The point is that the Regressives are trying to dilute and minimize masculinity.

Is it working? I don't know. We'll see.

If that still isn't clear enough, I just can't help you. Blame me.

The current situation with the Boy Scouts illustrates yet another way the Regressive Left is trying to "fundamentally change" the country, and it's certainly working.
Yes, I am. It's you who can't seem to keep up.

Look at what I actually wrote: The Left is succeeding at fundamentally changing the country.

Did I say that the Left is succeeding in emasculating men? Nope.

This is why I no longer burn much effort trying to communicate with ideologues. Your thought processes are damaged by your ideology.
.

You have no idea of what you're trying to say.
You're contriving some imagined conspiracy
and point to the BSA decision as proof even though you freely admit that you don't know if that is indeed the case.

Seeking clarity does not make me an ideologue. However, your adherence to conspiracies concerning the left certainly suggests that you are.
 
Masculinity only frightens the weak.

Boy Scout membership is slipping because there are now alternatives whose memberships are growing.

Hyper masculinity is is a coping mechanism for the insecure.

Define hyper-masculinity.
why don't you ask the OP to define "masculinity" first.

Because I choose to ask Hutch.
cart-before-the-horse-small.png

Nah. He raised the issue of "hyper-masculinity".
 
So somehow you don't see a difference between what you're trying to accomplish, and whether it's being accomplished.

Well, there's nothing I can do about that. The distinction there should be pretty clear, for anyone whose eyes are open.
So somehow you don't see a difference between what you're trying to accomplish, and whether it's being accomplished.

The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is to gain some clarity on your position in this thread.

I don't see how using the decision of the BSA
as an example of the "emasculization of America" is valid when you just admitted that you have no idea if this "is emasculating to the boys in this case".

Well, there's nothing I can do about that. The distinction there should be pretty clear, for anyone whose eyes are open.

Nothing is clear here. Not even to you apparently.
Well, then we just don't communicate well. I'll be happy to take the blame.

The point is that the Regressives are trying to dilute and minimize masculinity.

Is it working? I don't know. We'll see.

If that still isn't clear enough, I just can't help you. Blame me.
.


You're not very good at this.

The point is that the Regressives are trying to dilute and minimize masculinity.

Is it working? I don't know. We'll see.

If that still isn't clear enough, I just can't help you. Blame me.

The current situation with the Boy Scouts illustrates yet another way the Regressive Left is trying to "fundamentally change" the country, and it's certainly working.
Yes, I am. It's you who can't seem to keep up.

Look at what I actually wrote: The Left is succeeding at fundamentally changing the country.

Did I say that the Left is succeeding in emasculating men? Nope.

This is why I no longer burn much effort trying to communicate with ideologues. Your thought processes are damaged by your ideology.
.

You have no idea of what you're trying to say.
You're contriving some imagined conspiracy
and point to the BSA decision as proof even though you freely admit that you don't know if that is indeed the case.

Seeking clarity does not make me an ideologue. However, your adherence to conspiracies concerning the left certainly suggests that you are.
Liberal double talk of the day right there.
 
Hyper masculinity is is a coping mechanism for the insecure.

Define hyper-masculinity.
why don't you ask the OP to define "masculinity" first.

Because I choose to ask Hutch.
cart-before-the-horse-small.png

Nah. He raised the issue of "hyper-masculinity".
you cannot define hyper-"anything" without first defining "anything".
 
The current situation with the Boy Scouts illustrates yet another way the Regressive Left is trying to "fundamentally change" the country, and it's certainly working.

The Regressives have determined that they must dilute and decrease masculinity, which is why we're seeing so many stories where they are actively working to meld the two genders together.

From the Boy Scouts to Target's "Gender Neutral Kid's Collection" to gender-neutral parenting (Should You Raise a Gender-neutral Baby?), this is certainly a train that won't be stopping until masculinity is marginalized in every possible corner of our society.

If you want to know what people are thinking, just pay attention to what they are saying and doing, So, as usual, I'll provide some supporting material, all written in favor of this movement:

How to Combat Toxic Masculinity: Don’t be Afraid to Engage
Bullying and Toxic Masculinity
We Need To 'Undefine' Masculinity
The Mean Progressive: Trumped-Up Masculinity
A Guy’s Guide to The Gender-Minimized 1st Date -
Feminism 101: What is Toxic Masculinity?
Why Masculinity Needs To Be Crushed
Should We End Masculinity - The Progressive View
.
Soon women will be the toughest men in the military.

Does that scare you?
Indeed it does because if they ever go to war, They'll get their asses kicked before they mount any offense.

Sure, dope.
I'm sure that's what the command was thinking when they wrote the policy.
 
The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is to gain some clarity on your position in this thread.

I don't see how using the decision of the BSA
as an example of the "emasculization of America" is valid when you just admitted that you have no idea if this "is emasculating to the boys in this case".

Nothing is clear here. Not even to you apparently.
Well, then we just don't communicate well. I'll be happy to take the blame.

The point is that the Regressives are trying to dilute and minimize masculinity.

Is it working? I don't know. We'll see.

If that still isn't clear enough, I just can't help you. Blame me.
.


You're not very good at this.

The point is that the Regressives are trying to dilute and minimize masculinity.

Is it working? I don't know. We'll see.

If that still isn't clear enough, I just can't help you. Blame me.

The current situation with the Boy Scouts illustrates yet another way the Regressive Left is trying to "fundamentally change" the country, and it's certainly working.
Yes, I am. It's you who can't seem to keep up.

Look at what I actually wrote: The Left is succeeding at fundamentally changing the country.

Did I say that the Left is succeeding in emasculating men? Nope.

This is why I no longer burn much effort trying to communicate with ideologues. Your thought processes are damaged by your ideology.
.

You have no idea of what you're trying to say.
You're contriving some imagined conspiracy
and point to the BSA decision as proof even though you freely admit that you don't know if that is indeed the case.

Seeking clarity does not make me an ideologue. However, your adherence to conspiracies concerning the left certainly suggests that you are.
Liberal double talk of the day right there.
The only thing I'm trying to accomplish is to gain some clarity on your position in this thread.

I don't see how using the decision of the BSA
as an example of the "emasculization of America" is valid when you just admitted that you have no idea if this "is emasculating to the boys in this case".

Nothing is clear here. Not even to you apparently.
Well, then we just don't communicate well. I'll be happy to take the blame.

The point is that the Regressives are trying to dilute and minimize masculinity.

Is it working? I don't know. We'll see.

If that still isn't clear enough, I just can't help you. Blame me.
.


You're not very good at this.

The point is that the Regressives are trying to dilute and minimize masculinity.

Is it working? I don't know. We'll see.

If that still isn't clear enough, I just can't help you. Blame me.

The current situation with the Boy Scouts illustrates yet another way the Regressive Left is trying to "fundamentally change" the country, and it's certainly working.
Yes, I am. It's you who can't seem to keep up.

Look at what I actually wrote: The Left is succeeding at fundamentally changing the country.

Did I say that the Left is succeeding in emasculating men? Nope.

This is why I no longer burn much effort trying to communicate with ideologues. Your thought processes are damaged by your ideology.
.

You have no idea of what you're trying to say.
You're contriving some imagined conspiracy
and point to the BSA decision as proof even though you freely admit that you don't know if that is indeed the case.

Seeking clarity does not make me an ideologue. However, your adherence to conspiracies concerning the left certainly suggests that you are.
Liberal double talk of the day right there.
Liberal double talk of the day right there.

^ Doesn't understand.
 
The current situation with the Boy Scouts illustrates yet another way the Regressive Left is trying to "fundamentally change" the country, and it's certainly working.

The Regressives have determined that they must dilute and decrease masculinity, which is why we're seeing so many stories where they are actively working to meld the two genders together.

From the Boy Scouts to Target's "Gender Neutral Kid's Collection" to gender-neutral parenting (Should You Raise a Gender-neutral Baby?), this is certainly a train that won't be stopping until masculinity is marginalized in every possible corner of our society.

If you want to know what people are thinking, just pay attention to what they are saying and doing, So, as usual, I'll provide some supporting material, all written in favor of this movement:

How to Combat Toxic Masculinity: Don’t be Afraid to Engage
Bullying and Toxic Masculinity
We Need To 'Undefine' Masculinity
The Mean Progressive: Trumped-Up Masculinity
A Guy’s Guide to The Gender-Minimized 1st Date -
Feminism 101: What is Toxic Masculinity?
Why Masculinity Needs To Be Crushed
Should We End Masculinity - The Progressive View
.
Poor Snowflake

You afraid they will get cooties?

Ewwwwww.....Girls!
 
Define hyper-masculinity.
why don't you ask the OP to define "masculinity" first.

Because I choose to ask Hutch.
cart-before-the-horse-small.png

Nah. He raised the issue of "hyper-masculinity".
you cannot define hyper-"anything" without first defining "anything".

Can't call up a dictionary, eh?

Definition of masculine
1 a :male
  • masculine members of the choir
b :having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man
  • a masculine voice
2 :of, relating to, or constituting the gender that ordinarily includes most words or grammatical forms referring to males
  • masculine nouns
3 a :having or occurring in a stressed final syllable
  • masculine rhyme
b :having the final chord occurring on a strong beat
  • masculine cadence
 
Masculinity only frightens the weak.

Boy Scout membership is slipping because there are now alternatives whose memberships are growing.

Hyper masculinity is is a coping mechanism for the insecure.

Define hyper-masculinity.

It's classic over compensation. It's exhibited throughout this thread. Our president is a great example.

Hypermasculinity is a psychological term for the exaggeration of male stereotypical behavior, such as an emphasis on physical strength, aggression, and sexuality
 

Forum List

Back
Top