• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About peterbound

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/12/1979

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,547 profile views
  1. Really? The romans and greeks did it pretty well, as did every other warring/male dominant society. You might be right, and I now you're smarter than I am (although I did just take an official IQ test for some military shit, and was wildly surprised at my results) so I'll acquiesce and concede that point.
  2. I try to support the board. I'll buy it. I'll be honest though, you're trying way too hard to be clever with the title, and the protagonist's name. Is it a discworld/xanth thing you're trying to capitalize on? Is it a satire/humor book? I'm trying to understand what you are trying to do here before I sit down and read it.
  3. And even the ones that are attracted to the career field tend to gravitate towards the medical side of it. Everyone wants to discount physicality differences between the genders, but it's there. Plain and simple. And even if they can do the job like me, it's only good for a few years. One of the sad side effects of the female biology is that there comes a point where their bodies just betray them, and they aren't built for damage any more. Men, men can get the shit beat out of them well into their 60s if they train for it.
  4. Let me rephrase that, shall I? War, physical destruction and the inevitable warring another individual, leading to their death, and absorption into your society, is better handled by men. Crisis leadership was the wrong phrase. Because of the reasons I state above, crisis leadership during a time of peace leading up to war is better handled by the fairer sex, when its actually occurring though? Hand over the reigns... when it's done? Hand them back.
  5. Soccer, just to clarify, is an English creation, not an American one: in 1863, and the name association football was coined to distinguish the game from the other versions of football played at the time, such as rugby football. The word soccer is an abbreviation of association (from assoc.) and first appeared in universities in the 1880s (sometimes using the variant spelling "socker").[1][2][3][4] The word is sometimes credited to Charles Wreford Brown, an Oxford University student said to have been fond of shortened forms such as brekkers for breakfast and rugger for rugby football (see Oxford -er). Clive Toye noted "A quirk of British culture is the permanent need to familiarise names by shortening them. ... Toye [said] 'They took the third, fourth and fifth letters of Association and called it SOCcer.'”[5] The term association football has never been widely used, although in Britain some clubs in rugby football strongholds adopted the suffix Association Football Club(A.F.C.) to avoid confusion with the dominant sport in their area, and FIFA, the world governing body for the sport, is a French-language acronym of "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" – the International Federation of Association Football. "Soccer football" is used less often than it once was: the United States Soccer Federation was known as the United States Soccer Football Association from 1945 until 1974, when it adopted its current name and the Canadian Soccer Association was known as the Canadian Soccer Football Association from 1958 to 1971. The reaction against soccer[edit] For nearly a hundred years after it was coined, soccer was an uncontroversial alternative to football, often in colloquial and juvenile contexts, but also in formal speech and writing.[6] In the late twentieth century some speakers of British English began to deprecate soccer for reasons that remain unclear. "Soccer" was a term used by the upper class whereas the working and middle class preferred the word "football"; as the upper class lost influence in British society from the late 1970s on, "football" supplanted "soccer" as the accepted word, possibly as a byproduct of class warfare. There is evidence that the use of soccer is declining in Britain.[6] Since the early twenty-first century, the peak association football bodies in soccer-speaking Australia and New Zealand have actively promoted the use of football to mirror international usage and, at least in the Australian case, to rebrand a sport that had been experiencing difficulties.[7] Both bodies dropped soccer from their names.[8] These efforts have met with considerable success in New Zealand.[9]
  6. I think it's innate. Jumping onto train tracks to save someone can't be taught. I also like the idea also described in tribe (Junger, whom i'm stealing the risk adverse thing from) of how there is peace time leadership and crisis leadership and the need for both to stand aside when the other takes over. Typical feminine traits are shown in one, and male in the other. There is a need for both to be successful in this thing called life/civilization. I think we need to recognize the differences, and exploit them to our benefit, not beat them down and claim they don't exist. Striving for gender neutrality does us, and our biology, a disservice.
  7. They are talking about relaxing the standards. That's our fault as parents though, for letting our kids become fat bodies. They'll get in shape during basic though.
  8. For me the biggest qualities that girls/females have is that they are more risk adverse. Now that might be taken as a slight, but it's not meant to be. Men are more likely to jump into dangerous situations at the risk of their own survival. Women are also better forward thinks with regards to risk/benefit. This is a boon to our species, as it balances us out and is needed for survival.
  9. College in america is hardly representative of reality. You've got to know that by now.
  10. That's a beautifully poetic way of putting that. Can I use that?
  11. Ha, look at you, a wordsmith. I like it. And i'm not sure i'm troubled... just really, really interested it in. I belong to a culture that still celebrates the ideas of it (and I don't see that going away), and I still think there are large swaths of the country that still see it as something that needs to be part of their lives. I just want to make sure that I'm staying ahead of upcoming changes. Folks on here are so progressive they might as well be futurists, so I figure anything getting posted on here gives me about a 10-20 time frame to prep for it.
  12. I picked it up after reading the author's thoughts on TRT (something I'm a fan of). Can't say i was super impressed with it.
  13. When the fuck was I 'bemoaning'? And i'm far past the point here to be called the 'OP'. Use my fucking name, man.
  14. I'm not sure that /I/ am. I'm pretty happy with my current view of what masculinity means to me, and how I'm teaching it to my son. What I don't want is for him to be an anachronism when he gets to be my age because his old man couldn't adapt to the changing world. Now I know that this board skews heavy, heavy towards the progressive left (I'm considered a progressive in my circles, if that tells you anything about the men in my life) so I thought i'd hear out this side of the spectrum. I've been pleasantly surprised with the conversion. I do feel that many want to sit on the fence about the subject, and have it both ways. I don't think that's possible. I do think it's possible for our individual traits to complement each other, but like one poster said above, it's not possible for us to give them up completely. Our endocrine system won't let that happen.
  15. Ha, you must be new. I'm not a safe space kind of guy. Fire away.