I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding here. I believe it is my fault, for not making my posts clear enough to determine which side I was on.
Solaris wrote:So, just because people are sensitive, passive, introspective, and intellectual doesn't mean they're sissy and girlish.
When I said " So, just because people are sensitive, passive, introspective, and intellectual doesn't mean they're sissy or girlish." I believe I did not make it clear enough to tell whether I was claiming one side of the argument or the other, for after seeing the trouble I caused, I reread my post and saw that it seemed I could be on either side of the argument and that what I was trying to claim maybe would have been better if i had said it like this:
"Oh, so because I'm sensitive and intellectual, im a sissy and girlish!!! I wonder if the author of this article even has some sort of proof about this, not some random material he got off some dumb jock website!!!"
So... you can see that I believe that those traits are good and don't have to do with feminism, because both genders can have these good traits. I am sensitive, and I guess I would consider myself intellectual, and I don't believe that it makes me feminine, and neither should others be stereotyped as feminine, because of these good traits.
Earl wrote:Judging from his replies to several comments made in response to his post, the minister seems to have a double standard. He gets upset over any dismissive comments directed against football fans, but seems to have no problem with the intolerance that is frequently shown to guys (especially nonathletic boys) who have no interest in the sport.
I'll have more to say later about the minister's post -- except to say that aside from the use of certain sports as analogies (and nothing more), the teachings of the New Testament have absolutely nothing to do with sports. (I speak as someone who believes in the literal inspiration of the scriptures.) Incidentally, scripture does teach moral principals that definitely condemn bullying; so, why didn't the minister have anything to say about that?
Solaris, regarding the negative stereotyping of intellectual men, are you aware that in the past history of Communist regimes, many of the dissidents have been intellectuals (which is not to deny the fact that individual athletes in the unfortunate countries in question also opposed Communism or defected). A prominent example is the late Dr. Andrei Sakharov, "the father of the Soviet H-bomb" who became disillusioned with Communism and publicly condemned the government of his country for its horrendous human rights violations. And as far as courage is concerned, check out the en.wikipedia.org article on Raoul Wallenberg, who was one of the greatest heroes of World War II and holds the top Guinness record of an individual personally saving the lives of people (more than 10,000). Walllenberg was a highly educated man who detested competitive team sports, but he also was an extremely courageous man who dealt with German Nazis and Hungarian fascists who resorted to assassination attempts to thwart his rescue efforts. Now, there's a hero for us all. Not exactly a wimp, I'd say.
Very sorry for the misunderstanding, Earl. I was so fed up with the imbecile's praise of the dumb games that I forgot to address the intolerance to nonathletic people.
i_like_1981 wrote:If this guy is trying to defend sports, why does he keep calling them "dumb games"? I don't get it (although I have only been reading what you quoted, ChrisOH). This quote also succeeded in infuriating me:
To be passive and sensitive, intellectual and introspective is sissy and girlish...
Oh right, so being smart and reasonable is "sissy and girlish", is it? I can only attribute this to living in a world which hails those who are good at moving balls around as "heroes" and turns a blind eye to many of their wrongdoings (which can go right up to violent assault on innocent people) so that the image of these wonderful "sports stars" is preserved and the "fun games" can continue as always. Absolutely pathetic. You know, I do seriously believe a noticeable intellectual decline in this world is forthcoming, seeing as how attitudes like the one I quoted above have become so widespread in the world.
Best regards,
i_like_1981
Don't worry I_like_1981, I'm not defending the dumb games, and once again, I was not clear enough when remarking the author's comment on traits and feminism. I meant that I believe that those good traits don't make a male feminine, for both genders can have these good traits. I do not care for these "heroes" or the dumb games... so... don't worry, I'm on the anti-jock side with you guys!
I hope we don't have another problem like this again, I hope you accept my apology for my unclear writing, for I often rush everything, it's sort of a bad habit for me...
See you all again sometime soon!
He reviews another a book by another author about men's love of football (or at least his own stereotypical view of how men should love football).
I'm sure that none of us misunderstood you. Both i_like_1981 and I knew which side you were on. Neither of us ever suspected that you defended machismo. There's absolutely no need for you to apologize. You have nothing to apologize for. Rest assured, there is no problem of misunderstanding here.
...