The Lost Art of Manliness

[Carlisle Blues]

This symptom rather suggests that of a S.N.A.G *yucky* (sensititve new age guy).

Surely a S.N.A.G and the type of man now discussed are two very different things.

What is the difference???

Surely any man who wants to be part of "The Art of Man" is surely sensitive to the need to somehow improve for his lady. Sounds very new age to me.

 

[HadleyH]

The meaning of flowers is not new age.

This language was most commonly communicated through Tussie-Mussies, an art which has a following today.

Fine You may be right Miss Neecerie.


But Tussie-Mussies or not Tussie-Mussies the whole thing just sounds a little too S.N.A.G for my liking.

That's my honest and personal opinion.[huh]

 

[Paisley]

A manly man should know flowers from weeds so that he can save me from having to pull weeds--one of my least favorite chores. lol

 

[reetpleat]

He can sing, dance, act, and carry on spontaneous conversation. He's got his own style. To cap it off, he dates models and sleeps on a pile of money. Yet, he seems like a nice guy.

-and I'm not even a fan

I'll take talent, personality and success over some romantic notion of the educated adventurer any day.

Besides that, you don't know the guy. he might have loads of integrity, lots of determination (you don't have success like his without it) and he might be ready to step up and tackle a mugger stealing an old lady's purse. I see nothing unmanly about him except (as some here might think) that he is slim, pretty and does not wear traditional suits and fedoras. how is his singing different from a young Sinaatra, how is his dancing skill different from Gene Kelly, how is his style of dress different from any well dressed golden era actor?

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

A manly man should know flowers from weeds so that he can save me from having to pull weeds--one of my least favorite chores. lol

Hmmm, I was under the impression that wherever a plant grew that it was not supposed to was a weed. It being a flower was irrelevant.

 

[reetpleat]

My father died when I was in my early 20's, I had to take over the responsibility of being a central male figure for my younger siblings in addition to living my own life which included working on Wall Street full time, full time college at night and running my accounting/tax business.

I made it my business to seek out male role models that I admired, and read biographies of those that I wanted to emulate such as: Ernest Hemingway for example.

I am not eschewing "The Art of Man" all together. I am pointing out that information like the following clearly creates a negative influence on the target audience and obfuscates the realities of life.

This is from their web site.

"In the midst of solving one problem, however, we’ve created another. While the feminist movement focused on the role of women in society, little discussion was given to what men’s role in this new world would be. As a result, we’re left with men who are confused and lost about their purpose as a man.

A survey sheds some light on how men feel about their role today:

* 52% said they had to live according to women’s rules
* 58% said they would prefer to be the main breadwinner, with 34% preferring their wife to be a full-time mother/homemaker, and 24% preferring their wife to work part-time.
* only 33% felt they could speak freely what they thought
* 67% felt it safer to conceal their opinion
* more than half thought society was turning them into “waxed and coifed metrosexuals”

I will say I am happy to be a stay at home father, who cooks, cleans and faces my responsibilities. Naturally, my choice to stay home with my boy was predicated on the fact that I was fortunate to retire at a young age and am ready for expanding my life in many great ways. If I was susceptible to the influence of the aforementioned I can safely say that I would have a "WOMAN'" do the "womanly" chores and I would be dragging my knuckles on the ground and beating my chest at the appropriate times.

My father was around, and pretty manly, too much so actually. he thought his role was to have a family and provide for them, so he was working all day and too tired to spend time with us when he got home and mad all the time.


he taught me a bit, like how to work on cars, but I rebelled against his attitudes of manliness because I knew he wass miserable and unfulfilled.

Most men today are moe in touch with their feelings, like ot spend time helping to raise their kids, and actually care what their wife wants. is that so bad. That to me, is being a well rounded man, which is much better than the traditional man.

lately, I have a 12 year old boy in my life and I try to think how i can be a role model for him. I am working on always keeping my word, communicating with him, and caring about him. When I instruct, it is simple. Speak your mind, make a decision when necessery. And have some things in your life that are important to you. And do what needs to be done. My father did not teach me how to barbecue or use a straight razor, and I have no intention of doing the same for my little buddy. I hope to lead by example, not the trappings of vintage manliness.

As for the above website info, I don't think the opinions are any different than in the past. there has always been steriotype of the husband who knows better than to speak his mind or not do what the wife wants.

I do agree that men are confused about their role as women have revamped their relationship to men and what they need from them. But i would say the opposite of this websites seeming stance. Men need to fight against the steriotypes of them as dangerous rapists, insensitive absent etc.

But they also need to emerge and have their own men's liberation movement. this is, as women fought to be free to operate in the male realm, a movement in which men do not have to tie themselves to a desk and consign themselves to being only a bread winner and money dispenser, do not have ot kill and die for vague ideas of "protecting our homes and families" do not have to be afraid to nurture nad be involved with their childeren, especially daughters (sometimes for fear of accusations of inapproapriate sexuality) do not have to be afraid to stay home if that works better for the family, do not have to be afraid to confront and talk about their feelings, and what is going on forhem, to care for themselves, in short.

Of course, there are some men who do not want or feel the need for these things. these are the ones that are afraid they are being made into metrosexuals. heaven forbid you actually dress nice if you want to. I fear that this website is devoted to those who want to fight against this growth, and try to recapture this outdated vision of manliness that left many men to die early, destroy their bodies working like dogs, and become depressed and lost after they retire because all they knew was their job.

Frankly, I think men need to nnect a little more with manhood in this country, but they also need to connect with their feminine side in the way that women have connected to their masculine side, only after great struggle.

Once we have done this, we will all be fre to be who we are.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

S.N.A.G. Sensitive New Age Guy

1. Never view woman as a man's inferior

2. Act like a gentleman

3. Get in touch with your feelings

4. Learn to listen to us when we talk!

5. Not treating 'sorry' like a dirty word

6. Give your woman priority in your life

7. Do not treat a bad mood like it's a biological function

8. Respect woman's ideas and opinions

9. Keep your promises to us

10. Finally, love us for what we are

What a terrible way to treat your partner... There are elements of this in "The Art of Man"

Reminds me of Clark Gable and Carole Lombard or any successful couple.

 

[reetpleat]

I too am instantly suspicious of anything which tends to paint things in stark black and white, "this is what men do, and this is what women do". A lot of that sort of stuff that I have encountered is, frankly, misogynist to the core. The argument that 'men have no clear idea of their place in this new world' I remain suspicious of... well, not so much that there is confusion of male identity (there often is), but the notion that there is some sort of standard type of masculinity to which we all must adhere, and the frequent associated assumption that the problem is feminism, or at least that the world has changed, and not that men have failed to change with it. I find myself especially instantly suspicious of anyone who tries to peddle the myth that in order to be "successful" with women, a man should never be friends with a a woman. That said, looking at what this book has to offer in its contents list on Amazon, it does seem that it also has much to offer. There is much in it - table manners, for instance - which apologists for knuckle-dragging, modern man would tend to mock as being feminine, or even (sadly all too often) "gay". It seems to me that while it may not be for all of us, such a tome certainly has some sort of alternative to offer those who would otherwise develop the notion that being a man means being some sort of sports-worshipping neanderthal that dismisses the remotest trace of hygiene, health awareness, treating women well (or at least as anything other than 'the enemy' - the only thing uglier than "The Rules" is the male equivalent) as somehow effeminate or undesirable for 'real men'. In that, I'm sure it has much to recommend it.

I agree. I think that the only men who are lost in the modern world are the ones who have failed to adapt. And that is theeir problem, not the modern world. On the other hand, i do know my share of slacker boy men who could stand a kick in the but now and again.

I think that roles of men have changed, and they are still kind of finding their way in the new world, but the end result will be some very well adjusted, sensitive, yet manly men who know what they want and get it.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

My father was around, and pretty manly, too much so actually. he thought his role was to have a family and provide for them, so he was working all day and too tired to spend time with us when he got home and mad all the time.

Of course, there are some men who do not want or feel the need for these things. these are the ones that are afraid they are being made into metrosexuals. heaven forbid you actually dress nice if you want to. I fear that this website is devoted to those who want to fight against this growth, and try to recapture this outdated vision of manliness that left many men to die early, destroy their bodies working like dogs, and become depressed and lost after they retire because all they knew was their job.

Frankly, I think men need to nnect a little more with manhood in this country, but they also need to connect with their feminine side in the way that women have connected to their masculine side, only after great struggle.

Once we have done this, we will all be fre to be who we are.

I enjoyed what you wrote, in my opinion any woman who wants to be treated like a second class citizen or dictated to has a great deal of other issues to overcome before entering into a mature, adult and fulfilling relationship. In that case do not come to my door. I have entirely too much to offer, albeit not for everyone and a life that is busting to be lived and enjoyed.... I worked too hard to be involved with a cave woman.

 

[Foofoogal]

I enjoyed what you wrote, in my opinion any woman who wants to be treated like a second class citizen or dictated to has a great deal of other issues to overcome before entering into a mature, adult and fulfilling relationship.

I am just a bit slightly amused that you see traditional males in traditional roles this way.
I am sure people come in all levels of such but I see traditional males as much more putting women on a pedestal instead of being dictated to.

he thought his role was to have a family and provide for them

I don't really know what to think of this comment but wow!!

http://sandysfancypants.blogspot.com

 

[Dr Doran]

Interesting thread. I have not read the book in question, nor gone to the website. Here are some of the hidden tensions in this thread:

1.) The question of whether males and females are inherently different.
In academia, at least -- or I should say, in the humanities and the softer of the social sciences, at least (e.g. sociology and cultural anthropology, but not biological/physical anthropology) the following attitude has been dominant since at least 1969, probably really since Franz Boas in the 1930s: "All large-scale differences between males and females of the human species are at root socially constructed and have no roots in biology." This attitude is on the way out (not that it ever was "in" outside of academia). It is on the way out because of the "biocultural turn" in the social and biological sciences. This turn is not going away, so those of you who have decided that it is simply wrong, I advise you to at least try to understand it better. I'd advise reading books by E.O. Wilson such as his book Sociobiology. This book, however, is often thought of as crude: so something more recent will suffice. A look at The Adapted Mind by Tooby and Cosmides will work.

2.) The question of whether this inherent difference between the genders is best described by consigning men to the role of the "neanderthal," "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche" exaggerations that a lot of people hate, and consigning females to the role of some sort of submissive caricature of the 1950s woman who allegedly has some sort of secret power that is sometimes very difficult to see.

So here are the issues. 1.) Are females and males inherently different? 2.)If we say yes, then does that mean that the difference is as crude as it has been often expressed, in an exaggerated way?

Personally I would say yes to the first question: the evidence seems overwhelming to me. And no to the second. In this case, we must ask what the difference actually is, how we can really characterize it. I distrust the people who insist that males must act like big, dumb idiots. But -- no offense to Edward: I always like his posts -- I also distrust the people who think that a somewhat martial ideal of male strength must be ridiculed and disposed of altogether. Unless I misunderstand this position: if so, I am willing to be corrected.

And for the record, to deal with the dichotomy of manliness vs. nonmanliness, let me say that I don't think being unmanly means being feminine necessarily: it means being boyish, it means refusing to grow up. It means avoiding responsibility and living in a boyish world.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that it is true that in the changes that our society has experienced since 1969 or so -- changes that were admittedly sartorially horrible, but that is somewhat irrelevant -- women received more freedom, but both females and males lost some of the things that made them distinct, and some of these things were incredibly beautiful. Our culture lost them. Our campuses lost them (I have certainly seen this: I see it daily). A few of us kept them alive. Many of us did not. Some of these distinctions are beautiful things and are like lost crafts that deserve to be revived. We can revive them with a new sensitivity and carefulness towards what gets sacrificed if we do not think about what we are doing; but they deserve revival because -- well, because a woman in a 1940s dress and a man in a 1940s suit who are flirting in a gentlemanly and ladylike way are just an incredibly beautiful thing that does not deserve to die.

 

[Hamilton_Honey]

^^^^^^well said.

these are a few words that come to my mind on the subject under discussion:

maturity

accountability

intentionality

compassion

consideration

 

[Widebrim]

Interesting thread. I have not read the book in question, nor gone to the website. Here are some of the hidden tensions in this thread:

1.) The question of whether males and females are inherently different.
In academia, at least -- or I should say, in the humanities and the softer of the social sciences, at least (e.g. sociology and cultural anthropology, but not biological/physical anthropology) the following attitude has been dominant since at least 1969, probably really since Franz Boas in the 1930s: "All large-scale differences between males and females of the human species are at root socially constructed and have no roots in biology." This attitude is on the way out (not that it ever was "in" outside of academia). It is on the way out because of the "biocultural turn" in the social and biological sciences. This turn is not going away, so those of you who have decided that it is simply wrong, I advise you to at least try to understand it better. I'd advise reading books by E.O. Wilson such as his book Sociobiology. This book, however, is often thought of as crude: so something more recent will suffice. A look at The Adapted Mind by Tooby and Cosmides will work.

2.) The question of whether this inherent difference between the genders is best described by consigning men to the role of the "neanderthal," "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche" exaggerations that a lot of people hate, and consigning females to the role of some sort of submissive caricature of the 1950s woman who allegedly has some sort of secret power that is sometimes very difficult to see.

So here are the issues. 1.) Are females and males inherently different? 2.)If we say yes, then does that mean that the difference is as crude as it has been often expressed, in an exaggerated way?

Personally I would say yes to the first question: the evidence seems overwhelming to me. And no to the second. In this case, we must ask what the difference actually is, how we can really characterize it. I distrust the people who insist that males must act like big, dumb idiots. But -- no offense to Edward: I always like his posts -- I also distrust the people who think that a somewhat martial ideal of male strength must be ridiculed and disposed of altogether. Unless I misunderstand this position: if so, I am willing to be corrected.

And for the record, to deal with the dichotomy of manliness vs. nonmanliness, let me say that I don't think being unmanly means being feminine necessarily: it means being boyish, it means refusing to grow up. It means avoiding responsibility and living in a boyish world.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that it is true that in the changes that our society has experienced since 1969 or so -- changes that were admittedly sartorially horrible, but that is somewhat irrelevant -- women received more freedom, but both females and males lost some of the things that made them distinct, and some of these things were incredibly beautiful. Our culture lost them. Our campuses lost them (I have certainly seen this: I see it daily). A few of us kept them alive. Many of us did not. Some of these distinctions are beautiful things and are like lost crafts that deserve to be revived. We can revive them with a new sensitivity and carefulness towards what gets sacrificed if we do not think about what we are doing; but they deserve revival because -- well, because a woman in a 1940s dress and a man in a 1940s suit who are flirting in a gentlemanly and ladylike way are just an incredibly beautiful thing that does not deserve to die.

Thanks, Doran, for some interesting insights. I believe that you are correct in saying that being unmanly (often) means being boyish, and refusing to take on those responsibilities which an adult man should be willing to assume. (I also believe that this includes dressing and behaving like an adolescent, something which I see on a daily basis where I teach.) Why so many "men" choose to live their lives in such a manner is a good question, but one which I won't attempt to answer right now...

The idea of a person's gender characteristics being the result of mainly sociological rather than biological factors, is a theory which was flawed when it was devised, and is one whose demise is long overdue. There are certain differences between males and females which are deeply rooted in who they are as part of their gender, differences too apparant to have merely been "learned" in any sense. For example, males generally do have an instinct to provide and protect (as well as to reproduce as much as possible), while females generally do have an instinct to nuture and support. (Not that men cannot exhibit nuturing and supporting natures, nor females demonstrate the ability to provide and protect, but that the ability to do such things instinctively is based on gender rather than social construct.)

Another Lounger quoted from TAoM website a section which spoke of how men for the last 40 years have been relegated to the catagory of Non-essential, so to speak, and that for some women they are merely needed as sperm bank donors. While this may seem too hyperbolic to be taken seriously, I do know some women who have purposefully had children out of wedlock, and are under the impression that their children don't need a father in order to be reared properly, the idea being that the female can be both mother and father to the child. (While this is often the case due to divorce or the death of a spouse, it is certainly not ideal, nor is it something to emulate.) I would daresay that the above is a prevailing attitude among many women. In addition, it is popular and accepted in the media to portray men, usually married men, as dolts and grown-up boys, in need of their spouses to give them a helping hand in solving and/or fixing a problem. Is this simply a reaction to the practice of men acting boyish and immature, or a byproduct of the feminist movement, which often sought to elevate women at the expense of men?

As you concluded, Doran, so will I: amidst all the social changes of the last 40 years (some of them necessary), many men and women have lost some of those things which made us distinct and desirable, and some of those things were indeed beautiful.

 

[Geesie]

I am sure people come in all levels of such but I see traditional males as much more putting women on a pedestal instead of being dictated to.

Either way is dehumanizing.

 

[Geesie]

And for the record, to deal with the dichotomy of manliness vs. nonmanliness, let me say that I don't think being unmanly means being feminine necessarily: it means being boyish, it means refusing to grow up. It means avoiding responsibility and living in a boyish world.

The crux of it and that which doesn't bring in questions of offensiveness.

The worst thing to come from the Baby Boom generation is a horrid Peter Pan syndrome - the denial of aging, the furious and terror-stricken view of aging. The belief that one can remain an eternal teenager, despite looking a complete fool in ripped jeans, a graphic T, and hair plugs.

I like this definition of manliness because it doesn't suggest or introduce misogyny. It doesn't embrace or open the door for homophobia. It simply acknowledges the fact of human existence and admits the dignity of the human life cycle, in addition to embracing each phase of life.

 

[Dr Doran]

The worst thing to come from the Baby Boom generation is a horrid Peter Pan syndrome - the denial of aging, the furious and terror-stricken view of aging. The belief that one can remain an eternal teenager, despite looking a complete fool in ripped jeans, a graphic T, and hair plugs.

I have seen this too. I am often chided, by good and intelligent folks, for being overly harsh on the baby boomers (for a good look at what the baby boom actually was, I highly recommend the book Generations by Straus and Howe. It also explains, very nicely, the generations of the "Golden Era"). However, some critiques of the baby boomers seem accurate, and this seems to be one of them. I am wary to critique the baby boomers in mixed company, since they, like certain other groups of persons, are very reluctant to criticize themselves or to be criticized.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I am just a bit slightly amused that you see traditional males in traditional roles this way.
I am sure people come in all levels of such but I see traditional males as much more putting women on a pedestal instead of being dictated to.

Never said I was traditional male that is your assumption. I see "The Art of Manliness" creating this type of model through there philosophical perspective that is evident throughout my posts.


Also I am specifically speaking to "The Art of Manliness" not any woman I may have been involved with or attracted to.

 

[tonypaj]

Never said I was traditional male that is your assumption. I see "The Art of Manliness" creating this type of model through there philosophical perspective that is evident throughout my posts.


Also I am specifically speaking to "The Art of Manliness" not any woman I may have been involved with or attracted to.

I admire your patience, and agree with your posts. As it is, I also stayed home with my son between the ages 1-3, out of choice. I taught me enormously about me, the society, women, and obviously my son. To this day, there is a bond that is hard to describe, you just feel it (he is now 14).

Overall, it seems to me that people are afraid of change, they are afraid of new ideas, and seem to like it when someone tells them how things are, mainly probably to escape responsibility and not bothering to work their own values out by themselves.

All of this can be seen in the comments we have in these threads like "there are rules" and "everything is not relative". If you limit the discussion to clothing, I would love know these absolutes, and even in the broader discussion, what are the absolutes that apply to every situation? But then again, it might get too philosophical, and that probably leads nowhere pretty...

 

[reetpleat]

I am just a bit slightly amused that you see traditional males in traditional roles this way.
I am sure people come in all levels of such but I see traditional males as much more putting women on a pedestal instead of being dictated to.


I don't really know what to think of this comment but wow!!

http://sandysfancypants.blogspot.com

Putting women on a pedestal is seeing them as an object, nnot a person.

My father thought that his only role was to have a family and provide for them, which meant that he was never around, so he not only missed out on enjoying that family, but also was very absent to us and now has barely any relationship with any of us (6 kids) but me. I do not consider that a complete man andcertainly not what i want for myself.

 

[reetpleat]

Interesting thread. I have not read the book in question, nor gone to the website. Here are some of the hidden tensions in this thread:

1.) The question of whether males and females are inherently different.
In academia, at least -- or I should say, in the humanities and the softer of the social sciences, at least (e.g. sociology and cultural anthropology, but not biological/physical anthropology) the following attitude has been dominant since at least 1969, probably really since Franz Boas in the 1930s: "All large-scale differences between males and females of the human species are at root socially constructed and have no roots in biology." This attitude is on the way out (not that it ever was "in" outside of academia). It is on the way out because of the "biocultural turn" in the social and biological sciences. This turn is not going away, so those of you who have decided that it is simply wrong, I advise you to at least try to understand it better. I'd advise reading books by E.O. Wilson such as his book Sociobiology. This book, however, is often thought of as crude: so something more recent will suffice. A look at The Adapted Mind by Tooby and Cosmides will work.

2.) The question of whether this inherent difference between the genders is best described by consigning men to the role of the "neanderthal," "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche" exaggerations that a lot of people hate, and consigning females to the role of some sort of submissive caricature of the 1950s woman who allegedly has some sort of secret power that is sometimes very difficult to see.

So here are the issues. 1.) Are females and males inherently different? 2.)If we say yes, then does that mean that the difference is as crude as it has been often expressed, in an exaggerated way?

Personally I would say yes to the first question: the evidence seems overwhelming to me. And no to the second. In this case, we must ask what the difference actually is, how we can really characterize it. I distrust the people who insist that males must act like big, dumb idiots. But -- no offense to Edward: I always like his posts -- I also distrust the people who think that a somewhat martial ideal of male strength must be ridiculed and disposed of altogether. Unless I misunderstand this position: if so, I am willing to be corrected.

And for the record, to deal with the dichotomy of manliness vs. nonmanliness, let me say that I don't think being unmanly means being feminine necessarily: it means being boyish, it means refusing to grow up. It means avoiding responsibility and living in a boyish world.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that it is true that in the changes that our society has experienced since 1969 or so -- changes that were admittedly sartorially horrible, but that is somewhat irrelevant -- women received more freedom, but both females and males lost some of the things that made them distinct, and some of these things were incredibly beautiful. Our culture lost them. Our campuses lost them (I have certainly seen this: I see it daily). A few of us kept them alive. Many of us did not. Some of these distinctions are beautiful things and are like lost crafts that deserve to be revived. We can revive them with a new sensitivity and carefulness towards what gets sacrificed if we do not think about what we are doing; but they deserve revival because -- well, because a woman in a 1940s dress and a man in a 1940s suit who are flirting in a gentlemanly and ladylike way are just an incredibly beautiful thing that does not deserve to die.

Reasonable summary. I do absolutely agree that men and women, (actually, male and female energy are distinctly different. Some men are more connected to the feminine, and vica versa, and then there is th ewhole transgender thing as an extreme of this) there is an author named David Dieda that writes about this very well.

I think that there were set roles for men and women for the most part, that were challenged in the sixties as part of the women's liberation movement, as well as the tendency of the era to question and rethink a lot of traditional values. so, in the seventies, while women hashed out a lot about their new roles, but still have struggles with them, men are about ten years or more behind, trying to figure out a new version of the modern male that encompasses the traditional good values, but does away with the negative aspects, such as the man as an absent provider (strictly a construct of the industrial revolutiion) or the man unable to be in touch with his feelings or nurture his children.

I agree that this leaves some men in a flux, but at the same time, i don't necesserily think a throwback to the old image of a man is necesserily the answer. For one, it is not suited to the modern world, and it also lrevives much of hte negative. I do think that there is nothing wrong with playing with these dtraditional things, as long as it is not taken too seriously. I enjoy a good Details magazine article, or Playboy piece about things a man should know.

As far as the boyishness, it is just a trend that men ane women are getting married later and men have a lot of disposable income, so they are able to play and spend theirr money and time on video games. Big deal. Every guy I know who has kids has stepped up to the plate and become a great father provider, nurturer, and what i would call a man. Women sometimes complain, but that is because they want to get married and have kids. Not men's problem. I am 43 and still single and enjoying myself completely. i will marry and have kids someday, but on my own time.

As for something particularly meaningful about a style of dress, a suit, a couple kissing in vintage clothing, meh. I don't think it has anything to do with true manliness. 1000 years ago, men who would snort at the men of the golden era dressed in tights and velvet. it doesn't mean a thing.

We like suits and hats, end of story. there is nothing special or particularly manly about it. But they are cool.

Looks like this thread became a thread about manliness, n9ot about the book. I kind of fele bad for the original poster, but he should know that a thread easily takes on a life of it's own. Perhaps he should repost as a strictly about the book thread and leave this discussion to this thread.