The Problem w LDS Men

[zionssuburb]

Undesirable masculinity is when a boy grows up without a father figure in their life teaching them how to be a man. It’s when a boy matures physically into a man’s body, but was never taught how to be a man. It’s when a boy is raised by his peers; and his greatest pursuit in life is the fulfillment of his own selfish lustful pleasures. Undesirable masculinity is power that is not under control.

The problem with modern culture is the vilification of true masculinity. As well as the conflation of masculinity and toxic masculinity.
A man takes responsibility for his actions. A man uses his physical strength to provide for those responsibilities and to protect those responsibilities. A man uses his strength and masculinity to stand for what’s true and good, to protect and defend his family, the innocent and those who can’t protect themselves.

The point that they were making with the Mr Rogers discussion was that our twisted modern day culture would have you believe that all masculine traits are inherently bad; in and of themselves, that masculinity is evil. And that for a man not to be bad or evil a man must cast off his masculine traits and become more effeminate, become soft spoken, emotionally fragile, mentally less tough, etc.

Mr Rogers is the iconic ideal for how a masculine man acts around children and treats children.

Our modern culture would have you believe that the ideal man acts like Mr Rogers all the time, in every interaction in society. That was the point that they were making. When they said that Mr Rogers fiercely defended before Congress the things that were good that he was passionate about, that was true masculinity. They weren’t saying Mr Rogers wasn’t a masculine man.

[FrankOne]

I had several close friends.

We were that tight.

Then one by one marriage.

To girls who mostly mutually knew each other.

Who subsequently couldn't get along.

You can guess the rest.

We are still friends.

But we don't do anything together.

Sir H

I had two good close friends, then...they got married. We all rode dirt bikes since we were little, grew up on them. My one friends wife told him that he couldn't ride anymore. uh...ok. The other friends wife wouldn't let him do ANYTHING without her. I'm not exaggerating. Nothing. Since I wasn't married it was plain awkward to do anything with them. ...she had an attitude. You get the picture.

Most of my friends got married before I did. I was also the youngest of 6 kids as I watched all of them get married. I learned by observation to be very choosy about a mate as i watched the majority of those that got married go through hell in their marriages. Also, even though my wife was/is a gem of a human being, I still asked her if it was ok with her to wait 4 yrs to have kids.....just in case. She agreed. There was a secondary reason for waiting and that was to spend alot of time together.....just us two ....camping, hiking, fishing, riding 4 wheelers. It worked out perfectly and after 4 yrs, we both REALLY wanted to have kids. 6 kids later, life hasn't always been easy, but we have worked as a team and if I could go back and start over, I would make all the same choices.

see - that right there ^ is something that ought to be preached.

In high school, I had no idea "who I was". Then I went on a mission. But I wasn't into wearing suits (so I still didn't know who I was). When I came home, I started dating right away because "gotta make up for those 2 years that I'm now behind!!!" so I didn't have time to find out who I was then, and I jumped right into dating - didn't want to hit that first mission reunion without a girlfriend!

go go go, all the time. I did some solo camping but felt like I was in a race (because that's how Utah makes you feel), so camping was a "waste of time".

If I could go back, I think I would spend a year living with my siblings after the mission before I ever started dating. Just hang out at their house, maybe get a job on a farm picking berries or something - just to keep occupied.

Anyway, I made a lot of mistakes getting caught up in that rat-race.

my post made it sound like I was a smart guy BUT in reality, it was mostly luck (or God) of how things all worked out. A few strange things happened that split me up from a few girls which I later considered to be divine providence.

My two friend did exactly what you've said above, one got home from a mission and a girl globbed onto him and wouldn't let go until he gave up and married her. hahaha. The other one, I'm not too sure how or why they got together, it could have been that he thought she was pregnant...lol... dunno.

I view that God throws out the cards and our experiences are how we play the hand given, but I don't believe in wrong choices. "Wrong" choices just give us experiences that we don't like but are needed for our growth. (2c philosophy)

[FrankOne]

Our modern culture would have you believe that the ideal man acts like Mr Rogers all the time, in every interaction in society. That was the point that they were making. When they said that Mr Rogers fiercely defended before Congress the things that were good that he was passionate about, that was true masculinity. They weren’t saying Mr Rogers wasn’t a masculine man.

Reading the above gave me a flash back of a skit I heard on the radio of when a Father confronts Mr. Rogers about his actions with his young son. Rogers gives some sketchy answers to the Father which sets the Father off into physically thrashing Rogers and during the melee , Mr. Rogers says "OOh , there goes my loafer". I guess when I heard that some decades ago, I must have been quite the neanderthal because I laughed so hard that I shed a few tears.

[mudflap]

I had two good close friends, then...they got married. We all rode dirt bikes since we were little, grew up on them. My one friends wife told him that he couldn't ride anymore. uh...ok. The other friends wife wouldn't let him do ANYTHING without her. I'm not exaggerating. Nothing. Since I wasn't married it was plain awkward to do anything with them. ...she had an attitude. You get the picture.

Most of my friends got married before I did. I was also the youngest of 6 kids as I watched all of them get married. I learned by observation to be very choosy about a mate as i watched the majority of those that got married go through hell in their marriages. Also, even though my wife was/is a gem of a human being, I still asked her if it was ok with her to wait 4 yrs to have kids.....just in case. She agreed. There was a secondary reason for waiting and that was to spend alot of time together.....just us two ....camping, hiking, fishing, riding 4 wheelers. It worked out perfectly and after 4 yrs, we both REALLY wanted to have kids. 6 kids later, life hasn't always been easy, but we have worked as a team and if I could go back and start over, I would make all the same choices.

see - that right there ^ is something that ought to be preached.

In high school, I had no idea "who I was". Then I went on a mission. But I wasn't into wearing suits (so I still didn't know who I was). When I came home, I started dating right away because "gotta make up for those 2 years that I'm now behind!!!" so I didn't have time to find out who I was then, and I jumped right into dating - didn't want to hit that first mission reunion without a girlfriend!

go go go, all the time. I did some solo camping but felt like I was in a race (because that's how Utah makes you feel), so camping was a "waste of time".

If I could go back, I think I would spend a year living with my siblings after the mission before I ever started dating. Just hang out at their house, maybe get a job on a farm picking berries or something - just to keep occupied.

Anyway, I made a lot of mistakes getting caught up in that rat-race.

my post made it sound like I was a smart guy BUT in reality, it was mostly luck (or God) of how things all worked out. A few strange things happened that split me up from a few girls which I later considered to be divine providence.

My two friend did exactly what you've said above, one got home from a mission and a girl globbed onto him and wouldn't let go until he gave up and married her. hahaha. The other one, I'm not too sure how or why they got together, it could have been that he thought she was pregnant...lol... dunno.

I view that God throws out the cards and our experiences are how we play the hand given, but I don't believe in wrong choices. "Wrong" choices just give us experiences that we don't like but are needed for our growth. (2c philosophy)

Well, how about we call them "choices" and "less painful choices" then?

I mean, that divorce I had was pretty painful.... It was long enough ago that I can at least smile now. ok, maybe smirk....

[HereWeGo]

Reading the above gave me a flash back of a skit I heard on the radio of when a Father confronts Mr. Rogers about his actions with his young son. Rogers gives some sketchy answers to the Father which sets the Father off into physically thrashing Rogers and during the melee , Mr. Rogers says "OOh , there goes my loafer". I guess when I heard that some decades ago, I must have been quite the neanderthal because I laughed so hard that I shed a few tears.

Sounds like the old "Mr. Roberts" series broadcast over the radio on KRSP radio in SLC. Mr. Roberts was constantly being beaten up by Mean Neighbor.

[FrankOne]

see - that right there ^ is something that ought to be preached.

In high school, I had no idea "who I was". Then I went on a mission. But I wasn't into wearing suits (so I still didn't know who I was). When I came home, I started dating right away because "gotta make up for those 2 years that I'm now behind!!!" so I didn't have time to find out who I was then, and I jumped right into dating - didn't want to hit that first mission reunion without a girlfriend!

go go go, all the time. I did some solo camping but felt like I was in a race (because that's how Utah makes you feel), so camping was a "waste of time".

If I could go back, I think I would spend a year living with my siblings after the mission before I ever started dating. Just hang out at their house, maybe get a job on a farm picking berries or something - just to keep occupied.

Anyway, I made a lot of mistakes getting caught up in that rat-race.

my post made it sound like I was a smart guy BUT in reality, it was mostly luck (or God) of how things all worked out. A few strange things happened that split me up from a few girls which I later considered to be divine providence.

My two friend did exactly what you've said above, one got home from a mission and a girl globbed onto him and wouldn't let go until he gave up and married her. hahaha. The other one, I'm not too sure how or why they got together, it could have been that he thought she was pregnant...lol... dunno.

I view that God throws out the cards and our experiences are how we play the hand given, but I don't believe in wrong choices. "Wrong" choices just give us experiences that we don't like but are needed for our growth. (2c philosophy)

Well, how about we call them "choices" and "less painful choices" then?

I mean, that divorce I had was pretty painful.... It was long enough ago that I can at least smile now. ok, maybe smirk....

I do understand that, but not as it applies to divorce. Life is a crap shoot in many ways and can be a tough gig. It's good that God is always there to pick us back up or we'd have rampant suicide....

[FrankOne]

Reading the above gave me a flash back of a skit I heard on the radio of when a Father confronts Mr. Rogers about his actions with his young son. Rogers gives some sketchy answers to the Father which sets the Father off into physically thrashing Rogers and during the melee , Mr. Rogers says "OOh , there goes my loafer". I guess when I heard that some decades ago, I must have been quite the neanderthal because I laughed so hard that I shed a few tears.

Sounds like the old "Mr. Roberts" series broadcast over the radio on KRSP radio in SLC. Mr. Roberts was constantly being beaten up by Mean Neighbor.

sounds about right, but the answers that Rogers gave the father did imply that Rogers was actually a pedophile which set the Dad off . I doubt that Rogers was, in fact, a pedophile, but the skit was hilarious back in the day.

[MikeMaillet]

Reading the above gave me a flash back of a skit I heard on the radio of when a Father confronts Mr. Rogers about his actions with his young son. Rogers gives some sketchy answers to the Father which sets the Father off into physically thrashing Rogers and during the melee , Mr. Rogers says "OOh , there goes my loafer". I guess when I heard that some decades ago, I must have been quite the neanderthal because I laughed so hard that I shed a few tears.

Sounds like the old "Mr. Roberts" series broadcast over the radio on KRSP radio in SLC. Mr. Roberts was constantly being beaten up by Mean Neighbor.

sounds about right, but the answers that Rogers gave the father did imply that Rogers was actually a pedophile which set the Dad off . I doubt that Rogers was, in fact, a pedophile, but the skit was hilarious back in the day.

I think Rogers was a great guy but you may wish to investigate the man who played Rogers in a movie.

Mike

[MikeMaillet]

Q: Are We Not Men?
A: We are DEVO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3bF0N081TE

My favourite song in 7/8 time

Mike

[Niemand]

An interesting reminder that the average thirty something man back in the 1970s looked, well, more manly than many we see on the screen today. Even soccer players.

[Jonesy]

This is a short clip and good watch:

Sometimes Christians mistake Jesus to be a real softy, but he’s not—He’s a warrior. He faces his enemies head on; albeit in different ways, but he still faces them.

[Teancum1]

One of the problems I see, happens in most councils I have been and am a part of. There is a deference given to the president of the council. So much so that very few are ever willing to offer their counsel. It seems as if there is a game being played- “guess what the leader wants to hear”. So few men in leadership in the church are willing to share their counsel without reservation for fear of saying something their “leader” doesn’t approve of.
It seems to stem from what happens to us in the school system- always seek approval by conforming.
Being a man means standing up for the oppressed or weak when we see that they have no voice. It means sticking your neck out when it’s uncomfortable to do so. It is becoming Christlike- kind, gentle, strong, compassionate, loyal, dutiful, respectful, faithful, forgiving, hard working, helpful, moral.

[anonymous91]

Hmmm.

What are the fruits of your pride?

I’m not being any more or less prideful than any other person sharing their view in this thread. A lot of generalization
judgment is being expressed

I’m citing scripture to explain traits Christ sees valuable in one’s character and I found those traits support a gentleness and submissiveness that can be found in some LDS men and they’re being called less of a man for what I see to be attempts to follow after scriptural direction


The most manly man I know is devout LDS. Tall, blonde, athletic, works out, muscular tone that leans trim,dedicated to his wife, the most patient person I’ve ever known, and extremely gentle and he hunts for sport. He believes in secret combinations, loves the United States, loves conservative values

If ive ever met someone who has had a second comforter experience, I think it would be him. If he dwindles in unbelief due to bad doctrine, he has inherited false traditions from his fathers. He is an amazing man. He’s extremely manly. He’s also devout LDS

So, my nerve is struck hearing this over generalization that the majority LDS men are a bunch of fem boys that can’t change a tire.


There is a lot of unhinged LDS loathing that is complaining just for the sake of complaining here


It’s clear that men who seek to be meek and unassuming will continue to be cast off as things of naught even in the eyes of people who should no better than to be so quick to judge and judge so harshly

Hi BT,

Could you explain to me what you believe meekness is, from a scriptural viewpoint?

You are most assuredly correct that it is one of the key characteristics of Christ, and I just want to make sure we’re not taking past each other.

I find this to be an interesting question, and although this was not addressed to me, I did find the below quote & reference provides an excellent and detailed answer to this question that can be beneficial for anyone that is wanting to understand the biblical meaning of meek.

What it Means to be Meek

Meekness then is a controlled strength that puts everything in the hands of God. It’s founded on a trust of the Lord, and it always denies self. We see it grow alongside humility and wisdom in that it seeks another person’s interest at the expense of its own, and it’s pure, peaceable, gentle, and open to reason (James 3:13&17).

This should not, however, be confused with cowardice or weakness. It’s not being afraid to stand up to someone; rather it’s having the courage to trust God for justice. We see this in David’s life before he was made king. Several times he had the strength and power to take the throne for his own and yet he rejected self. He quieted the whisperings of flesh that say “Why should you tolerate this? He should pay for this!” and chose instead to trust the Lord his God with quiet submission (1 Sam 26:10-11). How counter-cultural is that in today’s world? We have an entire online world that roars against that attitude.

Reference: https://www.nhchurch.com/blog/meekness/

[anonymous91]

My daughter’s ex-husband fit the description of your masculine LDS male. Handy, strong and handsome. He left my daughter and his four children for a co-worker. A masculine man loves his wife and kids.

He obviously doesn't love his wife & kids, at least not if we are using the proper definitions for the word love. This is the problem with throwing out the word love, nowadays it means just about anything, including lust.

In a proper relationship between a loving husband and wife, this word was called Eros. Eros love is the physical, sensual intimacy between a husband and wife. It expresses sexual, romantic attraction. For the love between a father and his children this word was called Storge. A familial love, refers to natural or instinctual affection, such as the love of a parent towards offspring and vice versa.

When this man left to be with another man, the word you are looking for is ἐπιθυμέω in a selfish and carnal sense. The closest modern equivalent today we call "lust", it is definitely not "love" in any true sense of the word. However, the meaning of words is constantly being changed to confuse the general populace. It astounds me how many words have been altered just over my lifetime, just to accommodate the Marxist ideology that TPTB is constantly pushing.

This is why so many people are confused with the word love, is because the word has lost all meaning. Homosexual relations are seen as "loving" relations, rather than" lustful" and/or "carnal" relations by the average useful idiot that has been brainwashed by TPTB.

Just a simple example of this is most people believe we have a "democracy", since this word is always being thrown around explaining the type of government we supposedly have in the US. The reality though is that our government was specifically set up as a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. Here is a good article to refer to as to why this is so important:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/08/ ... democracy/

[Christianlee]

My daughter’s ex-husband fit the description of your masculine LDS male. Handy, strong and handsome. He left my daughter and his four children for a co-worker. A masculine man loves his wife and kids.

He obviously doesn't love his wife & kids, at least not if we are using the proper definitions for the word love. This is the problem with throwing out the word love, nowadays it means just about anything, including lust.

In a proper relationship between a loving husband and wife, this word was called Eros. Eros love is the physical, sensual intimacy between a husband and wife. It expresses sexual, romantic attraction. For the love between a father and his children this word was called Storge. A familial love, refers to natural or instinctual affection, such as the love of a parent towards offspring and vice versa.

When this man left to be with another man, the word you are looking for is ἐπιθυμέω in a selfish and carnal sense. The closest modern equivalent today we call "lust", it is definitely not "love" in any true sense of the word. However, the meaning of words is constantly being changed to confuse the general populace. It astounds me how many words have been altered just over my lifetime, just to accommodate the Marxist ideology that TPTB is constantly pushing.

This is why so many people are confused with the word love, is because the word has lost all meaning. Homosexual relations are seen as "loving" relations, rather than" lustful" and/or "carnal" relations by the average useful idiot that has been brainwashed by TPTB.

Just a simple example of this is most people believe we have a "democracy", since this word is always being thrown around explaining the type of government we supposedly have in the US. The reality though is that our government was specifically set up as a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. Here is a good article to refer to as to why this is so important:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/08/ ... democracy/

He left for a woman. I guess you have to be specific these days. I am amazed how much more common this is than it was 30 years ago.

[anonymous91]

My daughter’s ex-husband fit the description of your masculine LDS male. Handy, strong and handsome. He left my daughter and his four children for a co-worker. A masculine man loves his wife and kids.

He obviously doesn't love his wife & kids, at least not if we are using the proper definitions for the word love. This is the problem with throwing out the word love, nowadays it means just about anything, including lust.

In a proper relationship between a loving husband and wife, this word was called Eros. Eros love is the physical, sensual intimacy between a husband and wife. It expresses sexual, romantic attraction. For the love between a father and his children this word was called Storge. A familial love, refers to natural or instinctual affection, such as the love of a parent towards offspring and vice versa.

When this man left to be with another man, the word you are looking for is ἐπιθυμέω in a selfish and carnal sense. The closest modern equivalent today we call "lust", it is definitely not "love" in any true sense of the word. However, the meaning of words is constantly being changed to confuse the general populace. It astounds me how many words have been altered just over my lifetime, just to accommodate the Marxist ideology that TPTB is constantly pushing.

This is why so many people are confused with the word love, is because the word has lost all meaning. Homosexual relations are seen as "loving" relations, rather than" lustful" and/or "carnal" relations by the average useful idiot that has been brainwashed by TPTB.

Just a simple example of this is most people believe we have a "democracy", since this word is always being thrown around explaining the type of government we supposedly have in the US. The reality though is that our government was specifically set up as a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. Here is a good article to refer to as to why this is so important:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/08/ ... democracy/

He left for a woman. I guess you have to be specific these days. I am amazed how much more common this is than it was 30 years ago.

Thanks for the clarification; a decade ago it would have been assumed that the co-worker was a woman, but nowadays you don't know what to expect. At least we are living in interesting times. The brainwashing is even getting to me from time to time since I automatically assumed.

[endlessQuestions]

I’m not being any more or less prideful than any other person sharing their view in this thread. A lot of generalization
judgment is being expressed

I’m citing scripture to explain traits Christ sees valuable in one’s character and I found those traits support a gentleness and submissiveness that can be found in some LDS men and they’re being called less of a man for what I see to be attempts to follow after scriptural direction


The most manly man I know is devout LDS. Tall, blonde, athletic, works out, muscular tone that leans trim,dedicated to his wife, the most patient person I’ve ever known, and extremely gentle and he hunts for sport. He believes in secret combinations, loves the United States, loves conservative values

If ive ever met someone who has had a second comforter experience, I think it would be him. If he dwindles in unbelief due to bad doctrine, he has inherited false traditions from his fathers. He is an amazing man. He’s extremely manly. He’s also devout LDS

So, my nerve is struck hearing this over generalization that the majority LDS men are a bunch of fem boys that can’t change a tire.


There is a lot of unhinged LDS loathing that is complaining just for the sake of complaining here


It’s clear that men who seek to be meek and unassuming will continue to be cast off as things of naught even in the eyes of people who should no better than to be so quick to judge and judge so harshly

Hi BT,

Could you explain to me what you believe meekness is, from a scriptural viewpoint?

You are most assuredly correct that it is one of the key characteristics of Christ, and I just want to make sure we’re not taking past each other.

I find this to be an interesting question, and although this was not addressed to me, I did find the below quote & reference provides an excellent and detailed answer to this question that can be beneficial for anyone that is wanting to understand the biblical meaning of meek.

What it Means to be Meek

Meekness then is a controlled strength that puts everything in the hands of God. It’s founded on a trust of the Lord, and it always denies self. We see it grow alongside humility and wisdom in that it seeks another person’s interest at the expense of its own, and it’s pure, peaceable, gentle, and open to reason (James 3:13&17).

This should not, however, be confused with cowardice or weakness. It’s not being afraid to stand up to someone; rather it’s having the courage to trust God for justice. We see this in David’s life before he was made king. Several times he had the strength and power to take the throne for his own and yet he rejected self. He quieted the whisperings of flesh that say “Why should you tolerate this? He should pay for this!” and chose instead to trust the Lord his God with quiet submission (1 Sam 26:10-11). How counter-cultural is that in today’s world? We have an entire online world that roars against that attitude.

Reference: https://www.nhchurch.com/blog/meekness/

A most excellent response.

Thank you.

[anonymous91]

The problem as I see it is that our church has decided to put a bunch of effeminate men in charge. How many people love the stories of Captain Moroni or Samuel The Lamanite. These men kicked butt. They weren't afraid or milquetoast in what they thought or how they acted. Now we have a "prophet" who posts cute little pictures of him in his sweet sweater swinging on his swing set. Oh how inspiring. NOT. He doesn't inspire me as a man. Why can't a bishop grow a beard? To masculine? To aggressive? How come all of the leaders of the church are CEOs, MBAs, Doctors? How many of these men could change their own oil or punch a charging water buffalo in the face? The church has become super lame. That's it. It's boring. There's no inspiration from these professional religious leaders. Why go to church and hear another talk about how awesome Rusty is when I can stay at home and do something that is actually fulfilling as a man

As to your question about punching a charging water buffalo in the face? I think in all seriousness you would break your hand.

[HereWeGo]

As to your question about punching a charging water buffalo in the face? I think in all seriousness you would break your hand.

And then be trampled and die.

[Dangerous rhetoric]

The boys I grew up with in Sunday school tended to be rowdy, irreverent, and they would bully this one kid. Their parents tended to be nice people who were a bit permissive about it and often were very traditional couples in what seemed like happy and successful marriages.

One day, there was a substitute teacher who was just two years older than us for second hour, and she was unable to end the lesson with a prayer because the class was not really controllable. The girls really didn't bring any of the same problems, and I don't think there was any redeeming value to the free-range approach observed.

I guess it's hard to know exactly what the goal here should be as a man in the Church without a father because I also do think the most well-intentioned, aware women can't really teach or model the right behavior, and when it goes wrong it can seem patronizing because a lot of the time I'll short-circuit hearing words like "equality", or other things that I associate with

I don't like the approach to model mens' issues in the manner that feminism works, bringing up issues to a committee that men need consideration in policy and public awareness and pleading for mens' issues to be taken seriously. The redpill ideology, as soothing as it is to hear in the worst moments of my life, isn't ultimately helpful.

It undermines the sense that the role of men is to command respect through action in a way that demonstrates competence. No amount of diplomacy earns respect that you haven't put in the effort to deserve, and men aren't supposed to ask for empathy as a voting block in the town square, so it feels weird to have conversations trying to sell masculinity. If we did, what it should look like is applauding specific examples of real life heroes who exemplify what men should be, like the Navy SEAL who took tons of bullets running across a battlefield and survived.

Then if someone says "you're venerating a government founded on white supremacy", you can retort, "the only thing you've managed to do with your life is ignore the human rights abuses the chocolate industry is enabling through US consumerism", for instance, if they have M+Ms with them. We need reminders of what the ideal is and the impact they're having on people.

The problem is, if few are getting to that point in the first place because of (and I hate this word) systemic issues, then maybe the solution is for individual fathers to take the initiative within their own families to take the wheel and plan camping trips of their own if it's too cold for the whole troop to go. Basically to try to humiliate wusses by doing things anyway and having a good time.

What I will say is that I got mixed messages, and to an extent still do, about what women think the ideal man is supposed to be. Primarily, those who offered opinions at all on it skewed progressive. If you're a woman and your ideal guy is anywhere between Dave Rubin and Ted Bundy, it would probably be helpful to hint where that line is and what is important.

A long time ago, the assumption was that men were responsible for the conduct of their wives. Maybe that's not a populist suggestion nowadays, but it seems weird to me that we're all now waiting around for other people to organize something like damsels in distress.

It feels emasculating.

[RosyPosy]

The redpill ideology, as soothing as it is to hear in the worst moments of my life, isn't ultimately helpful.

I agree, the redpill/manosphere seems to hate promiscuous women but has no problem being promiscuous themselves. Essentially it feeds the bad behavior in women that they hate.

What I will say is that I got mixed messages, and to an extent still do, about what women think the ideal man is supposed to be. Primarily, those who offered opinions at all on it skewed progressive. If you're a woman and your ideal guy is anywhere between Dave Rubin and Ted Bundy, it would probably be helpful to hint where that line is and what is important.

It certainly seems women don't know what they want in a man.

[Momma J]

Women. You too are made for greatness. So, stand up and support your men while they defend all that is good on the battle front. Let them know that you love them and be present when they need your inner strengths. Keep them on course and encourage them when they grow weary. Feed their hearts and their bellies. Make your home a place of peace from the storms.

Pray with them.... pray for them.

God will guide you and help you to nurture your family in a wholesome manner.

This is exactly what men need. There are not a lot of women who understand this.

I am happily married and wouldn't trade my wife for anyone. But, my first thought when I read this was "Where were you when I was single?"

... Probably trying to figure all this out... Some are blessed with wisdom. Some have to be dumped on their head a few times before they understand. I am the latter.

[Niemand]

It certainly seems women don't know what they want in a man.

Or themselves. I know someone who frequently likes to blur the line between friendship and relationship and keep men guessing. She did it to me once. Now I have firmly set the line to friend and no guessing, we get on very well. But she still tries it with me occasionally, and I tell her off about it. I don't think it's malicious but it is a game women play and one that leads to trouble.

I meant to have a word with her new "friend" about this recently, but it seems I was too late. He hosts a monthly event, and last month he was incredibly despondent instead of his usual cheerful and energetic self. She refused to go, which was the first warning sign... she had obviously upset him. She thought I was joking when I said how upset he looked, until I got two or three other people to back me up. I think then the penny dropped that maybe her whole "are we/aren't we?" game is not good for people.

This man is a good soul AFAIK, and doesn't need unnecessary trouble. He was kind to her and took her out to expensive restaurants but she kept changing her tune.

I appreciate women need boundaries and to be able to say no, but sending out mixed messages all the time is not healthy and hurts people.

[RosyPosy]

It certainly seems women don't know what they want in a man.

Or themselves. I know someone who frequently likes to blur the line between friendship and relationship and keep men guessing. She did it to me once. Now I have firmly set the line to friend and no guessing, we get on very well. But she still tries it with me occasionally, and I tell her off about it. I don't think it's malicious but it is a game women play and one that leads to trouble.

I meant to have a word with her new "friend" about this recently, but it seems I was too late. He hosts a monthly event, and last month he was incredibly despondent instead of his usual cheerful and energetic self. She refused to go, which was the first warning sign... she had obviously upset him. She thought I was joking when I said how upset he looked, until I got two or three other people to back me up. I think then the penny dropped that maybe her whole "are we/aren't we?" game is not good for people.

This man is a good soul AFAIK, and doesn't need unnecessary trouble. He was kind to her and took her out to expensive restaurants but she kept changing her tune.

I appreciate women need boundaries and to be able to say no, but sending out mixed messages all the time is not healthy and hurts people.

Yah that's pretty much what my dating life was.

And men now days are too desirous. They will let women manipulate them to no end.

[Jamescm]

I almost left the Church over this. Especially the leaders who fawn over their own wives and even other women. Jesus didn't organize His apostles to preach the word with a talk about how much better than them their wives and daughters were. It was a repeated note on my mission, most especially. One area leader actually ended his talk by blowing kisses to the sister missionaries in attendance as he walked out. That is inappropriate.

As for masculine traits? All growing up, I was taught to be docile, meek in the modern sense of the word, and exclusively a follower in all circumstances. This isn't about camping or hunting, I did those things in scouts, but that isn't what makes a "man". It wasn't until I was an adult that I had to learn and develop masculine traits such as "taking a hit for someone else", "stepping outside my comfort zone", "taking initiative to accomplish something I don't know how to do yet", or "publicly endorsing something that is highly unpopular". Those are all masculine, yang, bright, warm, creation.

When my tire went out on the highway in the late evening, "hire someone" wasn't an option. No one was open. I had to use a skill that I gratefully had gone out of my way to develop earlier, because no one came along to teach me-not my father (also a victim of this social trap), not the Church, not some public educational class in high school, not some college general education, no one. By that same masculine trait, I was able to fix a toilet in our home by renting some equipment for a fifth of the price that "hiring someone" would take. That left me more money for the expensive things that my wife likes to have, who thankfully for both of us is smart enough to admire my having useful skills instead of throwing money at all our problems. We don't even have the money to throw at most of our problems, we're going on seven children.

My peers are all beginning their slow descent into middle age with their sedentary lifestyles, passive approaches to the public and ecclesiastical squares, and enjoying abundant time with their two or maybe three children in front of screens distracting them or telling them lies about the world around them. I'm still able to lift, carry, and be jumped on by, all of those children. I'm able to teach my boys how to use the power they have, and how not to use it. I'm able to teach my girl what is admirable in men, and what she should avoid or doesn't have to expect in them.

When Jesus undertook the Atonement and the crucifixion, He did it as a fighter, a warrior, a man. "Meek" didn't mean He was weak or submissive (save to His Father). "Meek" meant "He did what He had to do despite the pain and sacrifice, and despite His ability and right to resist it." He loved others enough to do what it takes a man to do. He was not overly passive, just read the scriptures! How many times did He calmly but openly and clearly rebuke others? Herod the fox, Peter who must get Satan hence, the hypocrites and serpents that made up many of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the woman caught in adultery charged to sin no more, the money changers whom He actually assaulted with a weapon that He hand-crafted for the purpose thereof, and the entire villages and towns rebuked for their lack of faith!

Men speak softly and carry big sticks. Men who speak loudly, who swing their sticks inappropriately, or who are found without sticks when it's time to swing them are all symptoms of the lack of masculinity in homes and societies, not the over abundance of it. "Toxic masculinity"? It is a term I've heard used exclusively by the same people who otherwise oppose the doctrines of God, whether or not they attend mine or any other church. It is a term much like "homophobe", "racist", or "white supremacist", possessing the ability to rightfully exclude the speaker from consideration by whatever party he or she converses with on the matter. Satan wants everyone to always "go along to get along". Sometimes it is appropriate, that is why we have women. They are good at that. Sometimes it is not appropriate, and that is what men are for. We don't go along to get along, we question foolish leaders, dishonest experts, and we straight up reject the malicious from any social station. That is what the adversary labels "toxic masculinity" and if that trait were possessed by too many people, he would be unable to slide his wickedness into the hearts and laws of men through shame (if you don't ____, you're a racist!), subtlety (Two weeks to flatten the curve...), and logical fallacy (Love is love!).