Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
What's false about it?
|
C'mon Ror, his homophobia, his labeling of men who do not fit his narrow definition of masculinity as "pseudo-fags"...He is so transparently insecure that it is laughable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
Scores of others below decks continued shovelling coal into the four story engines to keep electricity running to the telelgraph that those on the lifeboats might be saved knowing their own lives would be forfeit for doing so.
I could care less how someone dresses, but there has been a shift and the men today are made of weaker stuff than those who came before them.
|
I understand your point Ror. Yes, men are less stoic and reliable than those who came before them. But so are women.
My great-great grandmother supported her children and her alchoholic husband by working her hands to the bone as a laundress.
My grandmother lived through the Great Depression, WWII, worked her way through college, raised a brood of eight children without modern conviences. My mother was the second eldest and took care of her younger siblings. The fact that every generation is less strong than the one which came before isn't a gender issue, its a wider social issue that affects both men and women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Uhhhh... Proto, gender rolls exists because there are certain acts that are more suited to men or women. It isn't a "silly notion", it's defined by nature.
|
It is true that men generally are more suited for physically demanding occupations such as a firefighting. However, as we become more and more technlogically advanced, we have less and less need for physical jobs (which are more often done by machines) and more need for jobs requiring mental skill, something in which men and women are equal. One hardly needs the muscles of a prizefighter to work a computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
Everyone has emotions Proto, men are in touch with them as much as women are, but in past men refused to let them rule their lives. Thats the difference. If you had a disease which rendered your legs worthless, and painful to use, would you hide your discomfort in order to appear unbroken -to put forth a face of strength that others could place faith in, rather than cater to your weakness? Thats the choice Roosevelt had, and he made the only acceptable choice there was. A broken man could not lead a broken country and have the esteem of her citizens.
There is something noble about that Proto, and I wish it were existant today.
|
Roosevelt hid his disablity because of the perceptions about handicapped people during his time. He hid it not because he was ashamed of it, but because he knew that people would not believe in him if they saw it. Revealing that one has a disability does not amount to catering to it.