A Call To Men

Stat wrote

Well the org. A Call To Men recruits better men, to teach boys how to be better men. It’s not set up to persuade a man not to be an animal, it’s set up to help boys grow into a manhood that doesn’t abuse others. Better women, of higher quality females, recognize better men and are drawn into cooperative partnerships with them more so than the bad boys who will waste their time. So by being a better man, a cooperative, non-abusive man, a woman who is likewise will be drawn to you, your finesse to overcome challenges without lashing out, to meet consensual goals, to serve not only yourself but others as well.

Perhaps being positive will end up being my downfall, but so far, so good. :teasing-neener:

The problem is that you can’t define “better” in an objective universal way. “Better” is going to mean something different for every man and for every woman. For one woman, a better man might mean a better soldier. For another, he might be a better charity worker. It depends on the woman and her tastes in men, and also the man’s aspirations for himself.

I think we can all agree that very few women out there want a man who beats and rapes them, so the organization can probably do some good teaching boys how not to do that (and note I said ‘how’ not to do that, not just to not do that), but beyond that, I think we have to let men decide for themselves what counts as “better” and allow the women who happen to feel the same way to be attracted to them.

How’s about better means non-criminal, non-immoral, and helpfully nice, of course in a relative way? #-o Who spoke about jobs? Why are you tying better to employment, gibman?

Nobody addresses my points, just as well…

I like your focus on non-criminal. To put this into context, I’d say: non-threatening. But beyond that, a “better man” is going to depend on the woman’s tastes.

It doesn’t have to be a job (I was thinking religious with charity worker). It comes down to values and tastes. Some hold soldiers in high regard, others hold charity workers in high regards. Others artists. Others scientists. Others optimists. Others pessimists. Wherever your values lay.

Bad as in evil or bad as in tough?

#-o It’s all subjective rather than categorically objective is that what your liberal mind is going with? A better man is not subjective. The best man may be subjective based on personal preferences, but not a better man which would be an acceptable societal average of alike/similar answers of what constitutes a better man, not to be overturned or disregarded by choosing a best man, but better used as a stepping stone to narrow down the best.

Probably both. Depends on the girl.

^ Not sure what this last part means, but if we’re going based on what the average woman wants in a man, and we force men to conform to that standard, you’ll not only get a bunch of fakes, but a lot of disappointed women.

There’s a LOT of diversity among men and women. Averages don’t mean much.

I’m just not sure why we have to go farther than raising men to not be abusers. Shouldn’t women have a wide variety of different types of men to choose from? If it’s not a matter of a woman’s taste, but objective morality in itself, then why are we focused only on men?

This isn’t about forcing anyone to be anything, but it is about recognizing what in general makes a better man.

What makes a better man is a cute face, high IQ and large penis. I prefer my men to be a little rough around the edges. And this can all be accomplished through science.

And teaching little boys to live up to that. I’m just saying you’re in precarious waters when you go further out than basic moral principles of respect and anti-abuse. Don’t get too comfortable slipping into the role of moral authority.

Such perfection :wink: should be the moral authority.

Perfectionism in listening to one’s conscience. ← That’s a skill that could be taught to everyone (though I don’t know if it would get rid of diversity). Listening to one’s conscience would have to be paired with a sense of pride in doing the right thing, not guilt.

Can actual guilt be taught or is it just your own conscience making you aware of your ways? Better yet, can you teach someone to have a conscience?

You can provide the tools for educating an ignorant mind if it is willing to learn but you cannot force it to. Ultimately all self improvement comes from within
Everyone who is compos mentis has a conscience but not all are the same. Guilt is good it as it is admission of error and acceptance of personal responsibility

It would be easier to prove that everyone is insane than to prove that they have a conscience.

Everyone who is not insane does have a conscience but like I said they are not all the same
Since what might make one person feel remorse may not make another person feel likewise
We are moral beings but the things that we feel moralistic about can vary quite significantly

Such as…examples would be helpful.

I see nothing wrong in principle with eating meat but a vegetarian would. I also have no opinion on abortion in general
but someone who was either very pro or very anti would. Yet I do have a strong moral view on the concept of freedom
of speech but again not everyone would. And they are some examples of what I mean by not everyone having the same

Have you ever watched animals becoming food in a slaughterhouse?

No but that would not make me become a vegetarian because I already know that happens. I know that not every animal
is humanely killed but when I am buying or eating meat that thought never crosses my mind. But I actually eat very little
meat anyway. Some chicken on occasion and sausages more frequently and that is it really. I do regularly eat fish though