|
Are we talking about how women define manhood?
or are we talking about the roles men play in society? Both can be defined by scientifically looking at life...
Understand OUR nature, dig...
It has been calculated that, even when intercourse occurs at the time the cervical mucus is at its most favourable, only about 1 in every 2000 sperm penetrate the cervical mucus. The rest stay in the vagina, where they die. This is because the vaginal fluid is naturally acid, which is not suitable for sperm.
THIS IS A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT...
Now remember response 237? Where I highlit DESTROYING, and you responded saying the wall wasn't destroyed, it was merely penetrated? Later saying, "she swallowed him whole"(Pussy power anyone by the way?)...
Either way, we can agree that in order for fertilization to occur, one of these sperm must attach itself to the ovum and penetrate its outer surface. That's medically proven. The ovum within the fallopian tubes is PASSIVE, RECEIVING the spermatoza which are on a mission to release information to the egg willing to receive instruction (some of ya'll didn't hear me so I'll repeat myself),
the male sperm's mission is to release information to the female egg willing to receive instruction.
To do this, this male sperm must battle the acidic PH levels of the vaginal canal, choose one of the fallopian tubes (good luck my friend, No light in there) and find the egg, oh and you can't be slow, because then it's on a dash to beat their brethren at piercing the wall of the egg, which kills the other sperm once fertilized with genetic information (not that the egg doesn't possess any but you get my drift)...
My God Zora, these poor sperm are in the battle for their lives. Survival. Meanwhile, the egg, is sitting there, passive, waiting to be completed with information or knowledge from the male.
So if you observe these relationships you begin to understand the nature of men. By nature, to even survive, we must best not only our environment, but our peers, and even our female counterparts whom we are attracted to complete us by nature.
Our very nature is aggresive, to destroy/penetrate/conquer/subdue to the potential our will to survive will allow because our environment demands it.
We are projected, into the world to be conquerers of the odds surrounding our existence, that is intrinsic to our nature as men and a necessary requirement for us as builders, because you must destroy something before you build anything.
And while the woman's insurmountable job of NURTURING life, ADDING ON TO and BUILDING life, DEFENDING it, bearing it, and birthing it, her nature isn't to use force to do the initial destroying required of the building process, it's the man's job.
Sure your breasts are the medium whereby you may feed a child, but your body doesn't know how to prepare milk until it gets the knowledge from who?
From us.
Sure your body is the means by which a zygote develops into a fetus into a baby and its also the means by which you expand and develop amniotic fluid and send nutrients through the umbilical cord, but none of that is possible until your body learns how to from who?
From us.
>My position is simply this: All identity is performative.
>Ideas of femininity and masculinity are inter-dependent upon
>one another. *Mutually dependent* It is MORE THAN JUST AN
>OPINION...more like a social science.
YIN & YANG.
Men, go ahead, try to describe who you are
>physically, emotionally without somehow or another referring
>to “Her.” Mission Impossible.
Oh darn I shot myself in the foot...Right? WRong.
One, I made an analogy between the life of sperm, which are produced by male, but contain female qualities, so the means by which I describe male characteristics, can apply to female, certain characteristics to a lesser degree others to a greater degree. Remember, my point is that our very nature is aggresive, to destroy/penetrate/conquer/subdue to the potential our will to survive will allow because our environment demands it.
>How does this function on an inter-social level?
>
>Heterosexual women define manhood through expressions of
>what is Desirable…socio-cultural expectations, body
>mannerisms, personality traits, physical preferences --->
>nit-picky things such as bodily hair and endowment of the
>gen-i-talia.
If that's the case, then that's a shallow definition of manhood.
>Can men form a consensus on manhood without women? They can
>try, but you’d be hard pressed to find that definition
>resulting in anything less than a list of standards by which
>to COMPARE and JUDGE oneself against. To be what? The
>Alpha-male of course!
That's only so that knowledge will be passed on through the woman. And as you can CLEARLY see by the selections of your sistren, you don't have to be an "Alpha-male" to accomplish that.
>Sorry guys, unless you are homosexual the general consensus
>& generic opinion of women DO matter and DO factor, heavily,
>into your ideas/expressions of masculinity.
But that doesn't equal DEFINITION. See the title of your post.
>I hope throughout this conversation that you will keep the
>following questions in mind:
>
>1) How do ideas of gender identity REALLY play out in the
>real world (particularly black/African-American culture)?
To be surviving conquerors who dominate enough to pass on our knowledge.
>2) How is it possible for someone’s opinion to be
>“irrelevant” when one’s identity is wholly inter-dependent
>on the performance and compliance of the other?
Your opinion isn't irrelevant, however, it does not define who I am as a man. I know who I am supposed to be and not because I asked a bunch of women, but because I observed the nature of men.
>3) Why is the topic of manhood/masculinity such a hot button
>topic, particularly, for black/African-American men? (i.e.
>no girls allowed!)
You can't show or map out for us what it is to be a man. Just accept it. This is a fact that mostly all cultures not just African American have accepted even embraced. What's wrong with YOU?
>What is wrong with men showing emotion?
We do it all the time. You're just not as observant as you think you are.
>Before you knew it, we women were being accused of the “mass
>bitchification” of black males. What is all this shit
>REALLY about? Let’s talk!
That's an ENTIRELY different post believe I don't have the time for.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion 
but i think some of the phrasing was inflammatory and caused people to respond to something other than what i see as the real intent of the post. 
