[The Stronger Sex]

Quote:

Natalie’s passion for writing was reignited as she blogged her way through the pain of her son’s health issues and NICU stay. She is the wife of the world’s greatest foot rubber and mother to an amazingly loyal little boy and a fiercely independent little girl. An HR professional by day and a freelance writer and blogger by night, Natalie is getting a crash course in the juggling act that is the life of a working mother, though she does occasionally drop a ball or two! After spending much of her life trying to be perfect she has learned to rock her shortcomings and is not afraid to admit when she’s failed. This parenting thing can be tough and Natalie believes the best way to survive it is by keeping it real and by leaning on your tribe.

Note how the qualities ascribed to the female members indicate action, hardship and bravery ("Passion", "fiercely independent", "juggling act", "rock her shortcomings", "not afraid", "trying to be perfect", "tough", "keeping it real"...), while the qualities of the male members are passive and subservient ("foot rubber", "amazingly loyal...").

https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view...le-to-kids

[Mage]

Well that is all backwards all right, but why should we care about what some feminist writes. Let her wallow in her filth. Is every time some bitch writes an article newsworthy?

[BortimusPrime]

Is it just me or is it strange that the bio she clearly wrote herself is referring to herself in third person?

"Bortimus' passion for shitposting was ignited when he finally wore himself out from fapping and spent some time looking to see if there was any other stuff on the internet."

[The Stronger Sex]

(04-19-2019 02:58 PM)Mage Wrote:  

Well that is all backwards all right, but why should we care about what some feminist writes. Let her wallow in her filth. Is every time some bitch writes an article newsworthy?

Obviously she's just one insignificant digital media attention whore, but she's one more drop in the ocean of social engineering. Her "crime" is not victimless. His son is being brought up as a cuck and every silly article by some airhead contributes to the general brainwashing.

[Rorogue]

Imagine being reduced to 'world's greatest foot rubber'. The pathetic depths to which western men will sink never fails to surprise me.

This is what happens when, as a man, you don't have a compelling vision. Some nasty woman will set the 'agenda' for you.

Men are to blame for this. When there's a lack of masculinity in the atmosphere, disorder abounds

[trickster]

The article is actually relevant and important and has nothing to do with gender roles in the modern family, though it seems no one read it judging by the thread? I have to assume that if you think it's a problem to have a loyal little boy and independent little girl that you don't have any children.

[Easy_C]

Why would we? We already know what she's going to say.

[Manbeline]

(04-24-2019 08:18 AM)trickster Wrote:  

The article is actually relevant and important and has nothing to do with gender roles in the modern family, though it seems no one read it judging by the thread? I have to assume that if you think it's a problem to have a loyal little boy and independent little girl that you don't have any children.

Usually, when article threads are made, the article is copy and pasted in a quote at the start of the thread to capture eyes immediately and not make people go to the site itself. It helps both with quick appeal and keeps us from having to suffer through ads and other unwanted gook. The news has to be brought to us, not us have to go there. And if I know this forum well, there is bad omens with independent girls, like the ones who try to take photos on dangerous places for IG and die doing it. A little boy, however, has to be loyal to one person in the household: the father.

[trickster]

(04-24-2019 08:54 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  

Why would we? We already know what she's going to say.

What do you think the article says?

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

(04-24-2019 08:18 AM)trickster Wrote:  

The article is actually relevant and important and has nothing to do with gender roles in the modern family, though it seems no one read it judging by the thread? I have to assume that if you think it's a problem to have a loyal little boy and independent little girl that you don't have any children.

The OP's post is not about the article at all. It is about the author's mini-bio at the end of the article. Therefore, the OP did quote the entire relevant thing he started the thread to discuss.

Why is trickster so hung up about this typist's blatherings about kids in sports?

I think trickster is a woman. Tits or GTFO

[Aurini]

See: feminist sex scene between Arya and Gendry in GoT.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Hey gang, I hate to be the contrarian here, but I don't think this article or this woman is worthy of criticism, much less an entire post.

First off, the piece she wrote is about how children's sports have become more like a full time job for them than a hobby. As such, families overextend themselves time-wise and financially.

The headline mentions her son's hockey league, but writers don't write headlines. Editors do. The actual article mainly talks about her daughter's swimming. The sociological change of having "The Coach" and "The League" run your children's lives should concern anyone who cares about the stress level of their kids and their family unit.

Then there's her third-person biography that follows the article. Granted, it's a little long. But third-person is how all of these bios are written. The other element they have is humor and -- sad to say -- that's something the manosphere is starting to lack. In other words, we're becoming like the feminists we rightly despise.

Look, she mentioned footrubs as a half-joking tribute to her husband. In my eyes, she meant it as a metaphor to praise the guy for taking care of her, not to degrade him. Singling that out as some sort of high crime is like the SJWs and newspaper reporters who take any joke made by conservatives seriously, and then try to hang them with their own words, as if the public can't sense the larger context.

And, yeah, the "fiercely independent little girl" line is a feminist cliche, but my guess is that's what her daughter is really like personality-wise. In her mind, that could also mean "I wish my daughter would listen to me better." It might not have been feminist-fueled at all. Might have been a parent's lament.

To conclude, this a married mom who is making it her business to worry about family's time and money and how that fits in with parenting. As a photo, it looks like she used a shot from her wedding.

There are a lot of targets we can go after. I don't think this should be one of them. Next time, try the man-hating cat lady wackos in the media and on university campuses...or other unfortunate humans like that.

[trickster]

DOBA -- Thanks for agreeing with me, even if you do think I have tits. I knew a reasonable person would come along eventually.

[Rorogue]

@daysofbrokenarrows

I note your point, but I really don't like the comparison of 'loyal' for the son and 'fiercely independent' for the daughter. I mean who the hell calls a young kid 'loyal'? What the hell does that even mean? Loyal to what? To what she's trying to mould him to be?

Loyal implies servitude- a loyal dog, a loyal subject. I'm more likely to believe that 'fiercely independent' is what she wants the daughter to be.

Conisdering how the culture is today, I'm inclined not to see it as just a series of coincidences, but rather a representation of the skewed nature of the modern western family structure.

A question: would a woman call an alpha she is truly crazy about 'the world's greatest foot rubber'?

[Aurini]

Are we going after her? Or is it just a litmus test for the culture?

The 'fiercely independent little girl' trope is nature; women innately know they're more valuable than men, even at the earliest ages girls are more likely to cry for attention than boys. When you foster this attitude, you get the Princess from Frozen, shortly followed by a career as a stripper. It's imperative that young women are taught modesty, while young boys need to be encouraged into valour. But we're doing the opposite; encouraging the worst instincts in both sexes, submissiveness in boys and brassiness in girls.

Overall, yes she seems like a pretty good mom, for this day and age. Which is why this is so noteworthy. This isn't some Hollywood freak dressing her adopted African son in a dress; this is a typical modern woman, whose family enterprise is going to fail because it lacks the wisdom of the ages.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-24-2019 12:27 PM)Rorogue Wrote:  

@daysofbrokenarrows

I note your point, but I really don't like the comparison of 'loyal' for the son and 'fiercely independent' for the daughter. I mean who the hell calls a young kid 'loyal'? What the hell does that even mean? Loyal to what? To what she's trying to mould him to be?

Loyal implies servitude- a loyal dog, a loyal subject. I'm more likely to believe that 'fiercely independent' is what she wants the daughter to be.

Conisdering how the culture is today, I'm inclined not to see it as just a series of coincidences, but rather a representation of the skewed nature of the modern western family structure.

A question: would a woman call an alpha she is truly crazy about 'the world's greatest foot rubber'?

"I mean who the hell calls a young kid 'loyal'?"

A mom. You're looking at this from the outside. Put yourself in her place.

Her job is to get her kids to do the right thing. Her son listens. Her daughter does not. Therefore, the boy is "loyal" to her while the daughter is "independent."

How do I know? My own mother might have used these same words. I was the "loyal" one, following rules and trying to get my siblings to listen. This is the way moms speak/think.

And my own mother STILL uses these euphemisms. The sibling who never listened is "independent" not "a total screw up," like everyone else would say. It's mom-speak. Get used to it if you plan on getting married and having kids. Good moms don't out-and-out badmouth their kids in public. But they do use loaded words to try and get you to school on time and such.

Note to Aurini: I don't think she lacks wisdom. I think this is mom-wisdom. It only makes sense inside the family sphere but I'll bet if you think back to when you were a kid, your mom said stuff like this.

***

As for the foot-rubs, they're highly sexual to most women. I think that's her way of advertising she's still hot to him. Which makes him Alpha in her eyes. Why else bring something sensual into the discussion?

[debeguiled]

Shit. I was the sensitive one.

Guess I should shell out for one of these.

[trickster]

(04-24-2019 09:06 AM)Manbeline Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:18 AM)trickster Wrote:  

The article is actually relevant and important and has nothing to do with gender roles in the modern family, though it seems no one read it judging by the thread? I have to assume that if you think it's a problem to have a loyal little boy and independent little girl that you don't have any children.

Usually, when article threads are made, the article is copy and pasted in a quote at the start of the thread to capture eyes immediately and not make people go to the site itself. It helps both with quick appeal and keeps us from having to suffer through ads and other unwanted gook. The news has to be brought to us, not us have to go there. And if I know this forum well, there is bad omens with independent girls, like the ones who try to take photos on dangerous places for IG and die doing it. A little boy, however, has to be loyal to one person in the household: the father.

This might be the most inane comment I've read on the RVF.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-24-2019 12:49 PM)trickster Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:06 AM)Manbeline Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:18 AM)trickster Wrote:  

The article is actually relevant and important and has nothing to do with gender roles in the modern family, though it seems no one read it judging by the thread? I have to assume that if you think it's a problem to have a loyal little boy and independent little girl that you don't have any children.

Usually, when article threads are made, the article is copy and pasted in a quote at the start of the thread to capture eyes immediately and not make people go to the site itself. It helps both with quick appeal and keeps us from having to suffer through ads and other unwanted gook. The news has to be brought to us, not us have to go there. And if I know this forum well, there is bad omens with independent girls, like the ones who try to take photos on dangerous places for IG and die doing it. A little boy, however, has to be loyal to one person in the household: the father.

This might be the most inane comment I've read on the RVF.

It's not just inane. It's inaccurate and shows a lack of understanding of how families work.

Moms are the ones who mostly deal with kids on a day-to-day basis. It's moms who usually drive the kids to practices and get them to school and such.

Therefore, if you're not loyal to mom (i.e. if you behave like a brat and don't listen) you're not loyal to dad by extension. And what do you think dad's gonna say when he gets home and mom tells him you haven't been listening?

He's gonna say "You better start listening to what you mother says OR ELSE." In other words, "Be loyal to your mother."

I really should not have to spell this stuff out. It should be self-evident. This Forum is either attracting trolls or we've gone so far into man-land that we can no longer see the forest for the trees.

No offense, people, but nitpicking a word like "loyal" when it comes to a mom dedicated to her family is ridiculous. Once again: If you want to criticize women, there are lots of other targets. How about those self-styled Instagram "models" who take men's money via Paypal and such but show no LOYALTY to anything but their own narcissism? How about Paypal itself, which bans people for political reasons, but lets these ho's cash in?

To summarize: If you're not loyal to your mother, you're not being loyal to your father by proxy.

[Manbeline]

That statement was to say that the father is the defacto rule of the house. I agree on the basis of the kid being managed by the mother, but that is assuming the father is managing the mother. If the father is out of the picture, I call it a lost cause.