Men are evolving to be just as emotional and illogical as women, since their entire time is spent indoors like women had generations before when they were nurturing their kids and feeding their families.
When you're not doing heavy labor and using your head like men did "back in the days", your rationale atrophies to emotion and your body atrophies to untoned with fatty deposits everywhere.
Hence, you see men begging for an emotional relationship with women. Where did you find this 500 years ago, or even 150? Nowhere.
HINT: that's why men have a harder time growing beards and developing body hair btw. One step closer to a female physique.
500 years ago the jews weren't putting shit in the water supply creating a generation of weak men
so your argument holds no value
>muh misappropriation of Greek logos into the prehistoric
>muh industrial-age pragmatism
>>24535747
Cool hypothesisI lied OP is emotional fag
>>24535747
You don't understand history if you think that up until recently all men were these ripped, muscular pinnacles of masculinity. I used to work in the construction trades and so many 30-40 year-old men actually believe this stupid shit. "The kids these days aren't the real men like muh great-grandaddy!"
>MUH ULTRA-MANLY MEGA-MEN 500 YEARS AGO
Knights and warriors were a small, elite class. The majority of men 500 years ago were lowly peasants who died from disease in their 30s. They weren't muscular pillars of masculinity, they were unhygenic and illiterate people with rickets who performed repetitive, mundane tasks for the aristocracy when they weren't sleeping or in church.
>MUH ULTRA-MANLY MEGA-MEN 150 YEARS AGO
Most men 150 years ago were disposable, emaciated, barely surviving farm or factory workers who were missing fingers from being forced at gunpoint to work in ridiculously hazardous conditions. Then you had the artists, composers, poets, etc., who wrote long diatribes about romantic love for women so... the idea of an "emotional relationship" has been around for a long time. You also had the "dandies," the flamboyantly dressed bourgeois men who were basically the metrosexuals of the 1800s.
>>24535994
Have you forgotten that even 20,000 years ago women were given the "easy job", if any at all?
>men didnt want romance 150 years ago
le american education
guess all those poets were just having a laugh
>>24536062
But what I'm trying to say is did you see the severity of desperation back then as you do today? Civilization was developing back then so they still could have sedentary lifestyles, but just not to our extreme.
>>24536023
That wasn't the point of my post at all...
I know women have had "the easier job."
My point was that a lot of men have this bizarre ideal of "men of the past" that is incredibly inaccurate, and most likely comes from movies and television.
>>24535747
>Where did you find this 500 years ago, or even 150?
i guess all that countless literature, music, and art just came out of nowhere, right?
>>24536210
It's totally relevant. The reason you think it looks inaccurate is because you're not considering some factors, one being the fact that women have been atrophying for years, but not as quickly as men over the course of 1000's of years.
>>24535747
[citation needed]
Seriously, if you aren't going to provide any evidence, you are exactly what you're complaining about.
>>24536106
>Severity of desperation
You need to read up on 18th and 19th century artists, poets and composers.
They took oneitis to the extreme.
>>24536264
Think in terms of a continuum of severity. It's all I'm trying to say. It doesn't suddenly change overnight. Compare what you see today to what you saw 'back in the day".
>>24535747
>Your rationale atrophies
Nigga u wut? Do you mean your REASON atrophies? Please explain how men in the past were "using their head" more than men of the present and how this has caused a breakdown in reason. Rational thought has never stopped becoming more prevalent since the beginning of time; are you trying to say your "manly men" of the past were more rational than those of the present? Have you heard about the crusades? Salem witch trials? Crazy religious rantings from 19th century philosophers?
No, men of the present are more educated than ever, and also more rational than ever.
Your bullshit about body atrophy and "fatty deposits" may be true, but that's to be expected when economies are no longer based on hard labor, and most exercise is done recreationally rather than as a means of securing a livelihood.
>>24535994
>You don't understand history
>The majority of men 500 years ago were lowly peasants who died from disease in their 30s.
>Most men 150 years ago were disposable, emaciated, barely surviving farm or factory workers who were missing fingers from being forced at gunpoint to work in ridiculously hazardous conditions.
The irony here is delicious. I'm gonna give you a tip, anon. OP isn't the one who "doesn't understand history", it's you.
>>24536417
Umm, yeah. Are you devising ways to retain survival based on your own creativity and ability to manipulate the physical environment? No, because you are civilized now. While you still have to work and pay bills, the promise of your next meal is guaranteed if you continue that regular work, so there's no instinctive part of the brain that is being worked to achieve it, the sort the works extra hard because it's either do or die. Just "going with the flow" won't help you.
>>24536518
that works extra hard*
>>24536518
>Are you devising ways to retain survival based on your own creativity and ability to manipulate the physical environment?
By that logic, tribal Africans should be the epitome of reason and Greek philosophers who sat around and talked all day must be morons.
>No, because you are civilized now.
If your definition of "civilized" is "lives comfortably and has food easily provided by others" then I don't want to ruin your fun or anything but people have been civilized in this fashion for thousands of years.
>>24536493
Oh yeah? How so?
>>24536565
Tribal africans are civilized, fool. They work together culturally and socially. That's why they are so stupid.
Greek philosophers actually use their brain and almost nothing else. So if you want to tell me that yourself sitting there at the computer and doing nothing all day is an example of a Greek philosopher, rather than an emotional wreck which became the result of your lazy activity and lack of brain and body exercise, then I think we should stop here since there is nothing I can say to you.
I sort of agree with you but I think you're on the wrong course of reasoning. The problem is that men have lower levels of testosterone and physical fitness than their grandfathers did which makes them less manly. They have also grown up in more feminized environments - single mother, mostly female teachers, condemned for showing 'aggression' or rambunctiousness as a boy, demonised as a latent rapist as a young man - it's hard being a man under 30. Not to mention the way the job market is skewed towards women makes it hard for young men to get established in the world. The myriad forms of escapism available also contribute to men's passivity these days.
>>24535747
>you see men begging for an emotional relationship with women. Where did you find this 500 years ago, or even 150? Nowhere.
This is a symptom of the imbalance between men and women.
>Hence, you see men begging for an emotional relationship with women.
Men have always wanted emotional relationships with women. What do you think art is? Channeling their emotions into an acceptable medium because females aren't having any of that shit.
>>24535747
>>24535994
the modern male has way less testosterone than it used to have and the levels are still dropping. this is supported by multiple sources
>>24535747
Men are still more logical and capable of rational and constructive thinking. Not even hikki betafags would be as dumb and emotion-driven as feminist tumblrinas.
