Apparently, more dominant/aggressive women bear more sons :leon:

[MidniteJay]

You're misunderstanding him, he means "wuss" as in a man lacking masculinity.

Regardless of the modern worlds egalitarian views, men and women will forever be different, two different genders with typically different physical and physiological profiles, example, men are typically masculine (competitive, stoic, aggressive e.t.c.) whilst women are typically feminine (emotional, relatively more irrational, sensitive .e.t.c.), this is just the reality of the matter, unless you want to say that there is no typical physiological difference between genders?

That being said, who can teach a young boy how to hone his natural masculinity better than a experienced man of quality? Yes a women could teach her boy how to be be a good man in theory, but a woman will never understand what it is like to be a man nor what it is like to be a boy with a sht load of testosterone, that's understanding reserved for men only. That understanding we have allows us to communicate with boys and teach them a lot more effectively than women because we understand them, sht, we were them at one point.

So i disagree, a father present in the house hold makes a pretty big difference when it comes to raising good men.

Yeah I don't believe it's so clear cut like that. My father was raised by two upstanding parents, yet he wasn't responsible/accountable and ran out on his wife and let her raise 3 kids by herself. Good man?

There are exceptions to the rule, like I said, there is no guarantee, many factors come into place to form these "good men". You can have a four star badass in your household your whole life it doesn't mean you're going to be one there is always the foreign influence. No parent can keep 24/7 watch on their kids and if they do they are Helicopter parents which can be detrimental. My mother raised 3 kids by herself two boys and one girl. As far as I can tell none of us are bytch made and we don't have daddy issues. My brother is pretty much the poster child of stoic, has a competitive streak and there is no prissy qualities to him.

You're right it's healthier to have a strong father figure in the household but even his role can be undermined.

 

[Yuzo Lightheart]

but the sons turn into wuss, because if she dominant, she will be the dominant one in the relationship but she still a female, and if male offspring dont have a strong male father figure...they turn into wusses

at the same time, they wont understand how to solve problems, or resolve conflicts, because women cant do things like that

 

[concise]

This is stupid though since men determine the sex of the child.

Single moms can raise masculine men. It happens every day. Little boys come in contact with influential teachers, coaches, peers, entertainment figures, business professionals, and other males throughout their lives that they emulate. Fathers are just a steady, physically present role model, but they are not the only role model.

And men determine the sex of the child so the article makes no sense anyways.

from the links already posted:

Grant has new research published this month which, she says, puts her theory on a firmer footing and yet again turns reproductive biology on its head. What she has come up with is a mechanism that has proved (albeit in cows, which sounds odd but is considered an acceptable model) that levels of testosterone in the follicles (which produce the egg) reliably predict the sex of the embryo and, more startling, that the egg may well come out already adapted to receive an X or Y chromosome-bearing sperm. In lay terms this means that the female has already "decided" which sex offspring to have before sperm get involved.

 

[Mountain]

Yeah I don't believe it's so clear cut like that. My father was raised by two upstanding parents, yet he wasn't responsible/accountable and ran out on his wife and let her raise 3 kids by herself. Good man?

I'm not implying that all men are good fathers or good male role models, what i'm implying is that men are better suited than women when it comes to teach young men how to be men.

My point is simple, a man can teach a young man how to be a man more effectively than a woman because he understands what it is to be a young man, that's the reason why a good father/good male role model in a young mans life is highly encouraged by almost every tradition race creed across globe.

There are exceptions to the rule, like I said, there is no guarantee, many factors come into place to form these "good men". You can have a four star badass in your household your whole life it doesn't mean you're going to be one there is always the foreign influence.

Of course, just because you were raised around g's doesn't mean you'll become one, but the probability of you becoming one is much higher than someone who was raised under the opposite circumstances. Like wise, a boy raise with absolutely no father/ good male role model is less likely to become a good masculine male at maturity compared to a man who was raised under a good masculine father figure.

No parent can keep 24/7 watch on their kids and if they do they are Helicopter parents which can be detrimental. My mother raised 3 kids by herself two boys and one girl. As far as I can tell none of us are bytch made and we don't have daddy issues. My brother is pretty much the poster child of stoic, has a competitive streak and there is no prissy qualities to him.

Again, i said quote "women can raise a good men in theory", I'm not saying its not possible that your mother didn't make good men out of y'all, what I'm saying is that between a good man or good woman teaching a man how to be "a man", obviously the man will fair better.

You're right it's healthier to have a strong father figure in the household but even his role can be undermined.

Then again no role is indispensable, even a mothers role can be undermined if a more effective female role model inserts herself in a childs life.

 

[concise]

upped