each country and people have their own view about men? some see  "man" as strong perosn who protects? others just a species of human? or an animal with different sex organ?
201787
It's a well-rounded, protective, sure-footed, kind, just, selfless, heroic, firm, decisive person who is also capable of being, soft, sensitive, cuddly, quiet and introspective.
383871
Yes, the one with the most testosterone seems to parallel the male role. And the other one parallels the female role. That is often why highly charged career minded women (feminists)  don't actually represent the more traditional female, particularly well. The more traditionally minded women probably behaves toward them as though they were a man. No choice really. Another thing I have noticed, is that some lesbians seem to  have an intense dislike of men, whereas, gay men, generally do not dislike women as people. Male transverstites, however, are a different kettle of fish. I think that their whole personna is designed to mock women, and it is difficult for women to deal with them because they present themselves as women.
497467
I agree. I believe that animals are equal to people and they should be treated as such. I'm not a vegitarian or anything, but I still think other creatures deserve their rights. After all, humans are animals too. In fact, I don't consider the animals in my family as pets, I think of them as my brothers/sisters. It is unfair to animals and pets, but humans tend to think they're the dominant species.
610773
Well, I'm a man and I have to say I agree with your assessment completely.  I'll explain my own opinion a bit, here.\n\nAs you say, the attribute of being female is only a part of being a woman.  Female is just a sex, it might refer to any animal, and it focuses on sex, which is only a part of being a woman.\n\nThe same negative impression is left when you call a man simply male.  It is concerned with his sex (or gender if you will), it does not even consider whether or not he is human or his individuality.\n\nWoman on the other hand actually has a much more complete and positive meaning.   It includes the word man in it, which suggests the person is human, it even means that a (male) human or man cannot denigrate a woman without denigrating by implication himself, as man is a part of the word -- woman.\n\nAlso the prefix wo-  probably referred to the idea of helpmate or companion, signifying a special sort of human.  \n\nUsage has always suggested that woman was a preferred appellation over female.   It's only recently, the last 50 years or so, that radical attempts to rewrite language have occurred.  Because some feminist activists believed that being a "mere" woman was inferior to being a man and led to denigration (and likely because they were overly concerned by a misinterpretation that the Bible account might suggest that women were less than man as they were built upon a man's rib)  they decided they'd choose female as the preferred term.  The fact that it readily symbolized sex must have been clear to them, but then in the 1960s women some feminists liked to believe that the reason men hated women was because they were afraid of a woman's sexuality, her otherworldliness, and so it was the root of their power (although they were clearly saying it was the root of their persecution too -- a non sequitor in either case -- and clearly a strange focus on one mere attribute of womanhood).\n\nNotice the same thing has happened to "lady".   Originally, a Lady was the formal way to address a woman of some noble rank.   But by the time Feudalism is long dead, lady is being used in terms like "my old lady" or "lady of the evening" etc.  I never called my mother "an old lady" or "an old maid" nor would I ever call my wife that, which is the more usual degrading usage.  Because her being old has nothing to do with it, if she was old it would be a blessing meaning I had been lucky to partner with her all those years, and because any man who complains about his marriage while doing nothing about it is a mere boy, whether he calls himself "male" or not.\n\nI have to tell you, a lot of men find the words the feminists have bestowed upon women to show a certain lack of respect for women in general.   Many men, such as myself, do not understand why they find such significance in changing preferred identifiers or terms, especially since most of us viewed "women" and "ladies" as complimentary terms that brought complete or classy images to mind.  Female is definitely a step down, as you already described, as it minimizes or diminishes what it is to be a complete woman.\n\nIt's funny.  Some women hate to be called any of the following, but almost always they hate these less than being called a "woman" because of the modern stupidity and bias to the word, yet all of these are less than the term woman:\n\nbabe, baby, gal, girl, sweetie, honey, sugums, love-y, honey buns, old lady, flirt, sexy lady, sex symbol, etc.\n\nThey also seem often to dislike being called cute, even though what a man is TRULY saying by that is that he somehow can't get you out of his head AND that he considers you anti-lady of the evening {edit sheesh}.   He's trying to say that there is something genuinely clean, affable, and loveable in you, but that it isn't just sexual attraction.  Often it suggests that he sees you as youthful,
66195
Men physically\nWomen emotionally
83010
My oppinion is that people should keep what they are born with.  I think that men are born men so that they can fulfill manly duties, and I think that women are born women so that they can fulfill womenly duties. ;)
51078
Humans or human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "thinking man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.
624568
A women scorned? What would make you feel better? The truth is all people of both sexes have it in them to be arrogant chauvinist pigs or to be appreciative of there mate and refrain from carnal desires. Loyalty and monogamy is a hard characteristic to find in men and women in todays world.
551554
unfortunately in our society men and women find themselves playing stereotypic roles ie. the "strong" or macho man who takes control and makes all the decisions right or wrong, the "strong" woman who takes charge, mangles others feelings male and female. The man is typically seen as a d#*&k and the woman as a b@#$ch. People seem to have an almost pathologic need to team up with one of these stereotypes. They never develop their full potential in a relationship because one person is so dominant. On the other hand, everyone wants to feel that the man or woman they are relating to has internal strengths and will not a)fall apart at the drop of a hat or b) provide comfort and support when the other feels vulnerable or weakened by some of life's visicitudes Oh that people could just crave and nurture good friends, good stong yet loving partners. It is hard to believe that the ideal exists.. Hope is eternal. El cabo.
552629
I cannot get over the stupidity of those of you who answer thinking that the question is comparing gays to animals.  The writer is merely pointing out that natures considers homosexuality as normal. Animals having that instinct canot be blamed on intellectual choice or mental illness the way antigayists try to portray.  So please if you want to answer the question, try understanding it first.\n\nThat said, most antigayists are homophobic, which really means they are fearful and fear means "what can happen to me? How can thishurt me?  Subconsciously the fear is they themselves may be gay if they allowed themselves to accept it in others.  Why fear that? because then they believe they may be ostracized by their friends, familiy and neighbors and perhaps by their GOD.    Animals, which include humans, by the way....mammal.......there is no intellect. Man is the only mammal withy extensive intellect and reasoning.  If we take that away, tere would be no fear and no ostracism.  There would merely be survival. It is clear that despite homosexual behavior in animals, that is not a concommitant of their extinction ior being endangered , the continue to survive.  In this analysis antigayism is fear based and there is no good reason for it to be wrong.
443159
Not all men are dogs, women just do not know how to pick some of them. Why do women marry an ausive guy and stay with them
334817
I don't know why so many men think that resorting to physical force or violence makes them appear more of a man.  In reality, a woman wants a man who has the ability to control himself.  Men who have to use physical force to get what they want are ultimately insecure.
584951
i would say that is pretty much on instinct level men like them beause they are forbidden to see in public and they represent sex.  the breasts look like the behind which is what the male sees during sex primordially speaking.  Humans are the only animals that copulate face to face.
229269
"It" doesn't all look the same if you're referring to genitalia.  But to get to the nitty gritty of your question.  Men are visual creatures, stimulated mostly by what they look at.  Women are more sensual creatures, they are stimulated by a man's voice, his touch, his scent, the way he moves, the feel of his hands.  For most women (not all, just most), the sight of a raging erect penis doesn't do a thing for them.  It will be "the whole package" of a man - his every movement, word, and deed.
587441
thts a misconception not all they love men
189257
Hm. Not being a man myself, my motion could be denied, but I understand that the male gender in general (including those with homosexual or bisexual tendencies) may be resilient to commitment due to society's masculine power tendencies. In other words, we live in a masculine society, where all true, desicive and definite power is only a man's and never a woman's. The female, on the other hand, is looked upon as fragile, easily deceived; this through the beliefs that the Church has imposed with the story of Adam and Eve. The male figure is strength, and the female figure is weakness. Strength derives from the physical, while weakness is seen in the emotive. There is the connection: emotions are never strong, therefore, if a man is perceived as emotional, he is not a man at all. \nDon't judge me, this is part of hundreds, thousands and millions of years of social history talking.\nIf a man commits himself to a relationship, fully, he is opening himself to the emotional aspects of life. In order for a man to maintain his masculinity in front of society (his peers, family, colleagues, pets, etc.), he must distance himself from the emotional path and build a road back to his masculine side. Some men make a small shortcut trail so they can come and go whenever they understand it is required to do so. \nA man's ideals are also part of his education at home and with his own natural experiences. If he was not brought up as a "macho man", he will understand the emotional side of his brain better than the average Emotion Neanderthals we usually encounter with. However, there will always be that part of society's teachings which will darken his understanding.\nThat is the answer about why men do not accept the fact they have girlfriends. \nNow... if what you meant was that a man would not admitt to another girl that he is in a relationship... then you have encountered with a Neanderthal that only wants to slip into your pants, and you should find something to club him with.\n...\nHey, I'm just kidding about the clubbing.\nJust keep away from that jerk.
418931
livestock? lol\nopen a revolving door?lol\nu see, men's population are thinning nowadays, so less gentlemen and less casanovas...but mostly men are polite and courteous esp if a girl is modest n graceful....