# Femcels? Toxic femininity? Did you have a "feral girl" phase?



## laluna (2 mo ago)

Here's a thing I just learned about and now I'm asking you. What was the outcome, how long did it last, was it a group dynamic?

Is this the whole "you call your ex gf/wife/woman crazy but there are no crazy men because those men killed their families and then themselves" response to the male incel situation?


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

I think it’s an important conversation to have, although with this particular video it seems to be geared to a very specific audience, so most of the cultural references were going over my head. I wasn’t familiar with the social media esthetic.

I don’t think that incel and femcel cultures should be discussed separately, since some of the underlying issues would be the same. But I do understand that there are different expectations for men and women. On the male end you have extreme emotional repression and for women that would be emotional dumping or heightened emotional expression.


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

I'm sorry could not watch the video. Lady is bugging the shit out of me and I'm distracted by her eyebrows (or lack of). Also she said jif, like jiffy, instead of gif, like gift. I don't care what "English" says, it's a god dang gif. 

Uh, does that mean I'm one of these women? 🙃


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

What a weird mish-mash of references.

Repression of femininity in favor of masculinity as “safer” for women seems to be the most toxic behavior I see in the current cultural paradigm. Women who show a very feminine presentation _and_ do not hide their sexuality tend to be treated like a forbidden fruit that must be held up in effigy.


----------



## laluna (2 mo ago)

Squirt said:


> What a weird mish-mash of references.
> 
> Repression of femininity in favor of masculinity as “safer” for women seems to be the most toxic behavior I see in the current cultural paradigm. Women who show a very feminine presentation _and_ do not hide their sexuality tend to be treated like a forbidden fruit that must be held up in effigy.


I thought it was pretty weird too.

This is offtopic but maybe you can help.

I think I get lost in all the discussion of what masculinity is, what femininity is. Like I have a very feminine body but then I have people tell me I'm very dominant in my personality and I should be less masculine.

So what is a feminine personality? How do they accomplish anything if dominance is not presented? And wouldn't femininity always need to be compared to masculinity to determine which is being expressed more?

Like I heard a chick say "I need a man that is masculine enough to let me be feminine." And that kind of made a lot of sense.

It reminds me of the necessity for eggs to be packaged in a container capable of exerting the same amount of force on the egg as the egg can on the container. We're just looking for our balance in expression therefore the description of fem/mas becomes so nuanced it isn't worth worrying about, right?

Like wouldn't it all equal out eventually? If men become super feminine in expression women will become more masculine out of a natural balancing, don't you think?

Sorry for the word vomit. I'm awful at tangents!


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

I think there are healthy and unhealthy expressions of masculine and feminine energy, but that everyone has both qualities within them. It’s just not reasonable to live in a society and expect to get by on only one. Such people are not well-adjusted.


----------



## laluna (2 mo ago)

OrchidSugar said:


> I think there are healthy and unhealthy expressions of masculine and feminine energy, but that everyone has both qualities within them. It’s just not reasonable to live in a society and expect to get by on only one. Such people are not well-adjusted.


Lol picturing any Jane Austen novel and how horrendous it was to basically wait for a man to be all "alright...I'll have you and save your family from poverty"


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Modern feminists, “incels,” and the like are all extremists trying to rationalize their beliefs based on one bad experience with the opposite sex, or if it wasn’t just one bad experience then they have a shit value system cuz they can’t differentiate good traits in a potential partner (for them) from bad traits. They are likely shallow people with narrow perspective and should avoid relationships until they gain more (perspective).


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

laluna said:


> I thought it was pretty weird too.
> 
> This is offtopic but maybe you can help.
> 
> ...


To give you an idea of what I mean, look at someone like Britney Spears and how the public responded to her, especially when she was young.






She handled things in a very feminine manner: not confrontational but still assertive in her own way, attempting conciliation. She wasn’t afraid to express her sexuality as a woman or present herself in a soft and feminine way (speaking carefully, smiling and laughing a lot, using affectionate language like “that’s sweet” and “I love them”). Yet, she was treated visciously despite being a popular artist and her role as a sex object, a woman, a wife, a mother, etc became a focal point. It was obvious how young girls looked up to her as an example of feminine strength, and then it got immediately destroyed by the public.






What do you suppose young girls learn about how to present themselves from this reaction to Britney Spears? How does this sort of thing influence the desire to be seen as “fierce” or a “girl boss” or a “bad bitch”?


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Masculinity and femininity seem more like character stereotypes built around parental roles. Nurturing and protecting. Roles meant to be signaled in the social masquerade like Halloween costumes.

They came to be due to our cultural fixation on the incorrect idea that depending on your genitalia you can only do one or the other.

Toxicity stems, if anything from the taboo created by idealizing that binary and enforcing it despite it being obsolete. It's pointless traditional sentimentality.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

I don't remember who said it, maybe Jordan Peterson, but it went something like this:

In USA, 43% of boys are raised by single mothers, 78% of teachers are female.
So close to 50% of boys have a female influence only at home.
And the majority of boys have a predominantly female influence at school.
Maybe toxic masculinity isn't the problem, maybe the lack of masculinity is.

And this makes a lot of sense. Have you ever noticed how the vast majority of: serial killers, school shooters, and just angry simps in general are way more feminine than masculine?

Probably there are exceptions I can't think of, but I'm willing to bet that there's way more serial killers, school shooters that look like Elliot Rodgers than serial killers, school shooters that look like Andrew Tate.

You grow up with a female-predominated enviroment around you, they teach you feminist stuff, you grow up frustrated because whatever you do is not working:

You don't look as cool as you want to do and repress that part of yourself, so repressed inferiority complex towards other men.
You don't get female attention maybe friendzone as best because you're such a nice female guy but don't make them feel emotions, so repressed sexual impulses.
You are not competitive enough so you don't survive in a work enviroment without the boost of 'treat her nicer because she's a woman', so fail at work due to lack of competitiveness.
You are a people pleaser and that's a good thing to some extent to have a good soul and a good heart as that purity and joy can infect the other person, but the heathly limit is do good to yourself without hurting others, do good to others without hurting yourself, which you don't have because you were raised by women and women are naturally more people pleasing than men because they are biologically wired to raise an infant, and that 'people pleasing' behavior may work for a woman because people including dating prospects are expecting a woman to be 'nice' and 'self-sacrifcing' on some extent so it's just 'what a woman does' so it's very understandable and people appreciate you for it, but being a people pleser as a man just screams 'weak' and 'not a dating partner because you're not strong and can't stand up for you' as a man you're sure expected to be 'nice as in inviting but principled not people pleasing', sure you can absolutely be with kind people who hug each other at the start of the party that have decency, but you can't be do good to others while hurting yourself and have it appreciated like women, so you get frustrated because of the way you're treated.
We are dealt a different stack of cards. So a man learning exclusively from a woman will likely end up a frustrated man who fails in life and the best case scenario he becomes a simp or a radical feminist while worst case scenario he becomes a serial killer or school shooters. It's never people who are content in life that do this.


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

Dezir said:


> I don't remember who said it, maybe Jordan Peterson, but it went something like this:
> 
> In USA, 43% of boys are raised by single mothers, 78% of teachers are female.
> So close to 50% of boys have a female influence only at home.
> ...


This is a great point. Incidentally, I've noticed a majority of the men I've been drawn too either usually have a lot of brothers, or grew up with a lot of male friends, or family. There is something so different about a guy who's been around other guys a lot. Less acts of proving how "macho" or "manly" they are, more empathy for women, etc. Almost as if more relaxed. Guys who grew up with a lot of women though, tend to be overly sympathetic, but in like a trained way, out to prove themselves, or see women as the enemy, even if they like them.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

JFC I got around 5 mins in. I tried. What are these people on about? Toxic femininity isn't that. 
Plopping a group of artists into one category doesn't describe what it is and this clip comes across kind of crumb maiden ideals.....which incorporate the very concept of toxic femininity in practice. 









Identifying and Overcoming Toxic Femininity


Toxic femininity, or behavior that aligns with patriarchal beliefs about what women should and shouldn't do, can affect your well-being. Here's how.




www.healthline.com





Toxic femininity can describe any instance when women are either explicitly told to conform to traditional stereotypes or attempt to align with those stereotypes themselves, according to licensed therapist Meaghan Rice, PsyD, LPC.

Rice notes that while toxic femininity stems from society’s rigid molds, individual people reinforce it all the time. It often happens as a subconscious effort to find value or feel accepted in a patriarchal society.


“At its core, it’s an internalization of misogynistic values and power structures,” adds Vermani, going on to explain that toxic femininity is based on the following stereotypically “feminine” traits:


passiveness, selflessness, and nurturance
compliance, submissiveness, or docility
cooperation
sensitivity
politeness
empathy and compassion
home and family-oriented values
To be clear, there’s nothing at all wrong with having any of these traits. They only become toxic when you feel forced to express them, or you exaggerate them while suppressing your own needs, says Vermani.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

intranst said:


> Modern feminists, “incels,” and the like are all extremists trying to rationalize their beliefs based on one bad experience with the opposite sex, or if it wasn’t just one bad experience then they have a shit value system cuz they can’t differentiate good traits in a potential partner (for them) from bad traits. They are likely shallow people with narrow perspective and should avoid relationships until they gain more (perspective).


I think extremes on either side are usually problematic, but I do tend to be in favor of learning from past mistakes and growing perspective. The challenge for women is that past mistakes tend to define them for much longer than for men. (I’m thinking things like body count, youth, and physical attractiveness being highly prioritized in the dating market). I just don’t think women are given the same opportunity to grow from the immaturity or mental health issues that would cause their femceldom. I could be wrong about this, it just seems that way.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Ms. Aligned said:


> This is a great point. Incidentally, I've noticed a majority of the men I've been drawn too either usually have a lot of brothers, or grew up with a lot of male friends, or family. There is something so different about a guy who's been around other guys a lot. Less acts of proving how "macho" or "manly" they are, more empathy for women, etc. Almost as if more relaxed. Guys who grew up with a lot of women though, tend to be overly sympathetic, but in like a trained way, out to prove themselves, or see women as the enemy, even if they like them.


There was another speech from Jordan Peterson that discussed that part.

I don't remember that speech that well but it went something like this: A lot of guys who are on women's march of hardcore feminists and are overly sympathetic are actually quite predatory. Their psychology is 'maybe if I am on their side they will sleep with me'.

Which is the absolutely wost way to go, you should go the opposite direction, making yourself attractive by being more masculine and attractive to women, heck a woman can be attracted to you even if she disagrees with you, or especially if she disagrees with you, there's emotions in that disagreement, and shows you are principled, that you have your own ideas and don't try to patter her or raise her on a pedestal but treat her like a normal person.

At the same time, overly "macho" or "manly" are usually compensating men. Knowing deep inside that they lack masculinity so they need to compensate it with a big outward appearance. Maybe they have a big truck, a sleveless shirt and overall a more crude voice to apperar more masculine. While masculine men feel less insecure about their masculinity therefore they feel more comfortable bringing up their feminine side, including empathy.

For a masculine man who isn't compensating, their feminine side works in contrast with their masculine side. They have both. They don't feel ashamed to bring up their feminine side because they already feel they have their masculine side to back them up so they don't feel in danger of appearing "overly-feminine" if they express their feminine side like liking cats or liking cookies.

Usually, when one gender is too much in one direction, they are usually compensating.

There was another study about this, I'm trying to remember it but I can't.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

OrchidSugar said:


> I think extremes on either side are usually problematic, but I do tend to be in favor of learning from past mistakes and growing perspective. The challenge for women is that past mistakes tend to define them for much longer than for men. (I’m thinking things like body count, youth, and physical attractiveness being highly prioritized in the dating market). I just don’t think women are given the same opportunity to grow from the immaturity or mental health issues that would cause their femceldom. I could be wrong about this, it just seems that way.


That’s fair, I imagine it can be difficult to break away from that stigma because of how much society focuses on “image” relative to more redeeming qualities.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Dezir said:


> I don't remember who said it, maybe Jordan Peterson, but it went something like this:
> 
> In USA, 43% of boys are raised by single mothers, 78% of teachers are female.
> So close to 50% of boys have a female influence only at home.
> ...


This opinion is furthering my observations about the denigration of feminine traits and the modern perception that they are weak, dysfunctional, and undesirable.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Squirt said:


> This opinion is furthering my observations about the denigration of feminine traits and the modern perception that they are weak, dysfunctional, and undesirable.


Do you have an actual reasoning you believe that opinion is wrong or is more in the lines of you don't like this opinion so bad?

Furthemore, it was never a denigration of feminine traits, my last bulletpoint is a testament to that.

If you want a denigration of traits, look at feminists when they talk about masculine traits.



OrchidSugar said:


> I think extremes on either side are usually problematic, but I do tend to be in favor of learning from past mistakes and growing perspective. The challenge for women is that past mistakes tend to define them for much longer than for men. (I’m thinking things like body count, youth, and physical attractiveness being highly prioritized in the dating market). I just don’t think women are given the same opportunity to grow from the immaturity or mental health issues that would cause their femceldom. I could be wrong about this, it just seems that way.


Indeed. It's weird how for men the challenge is "sleep with women or else you're a loser virgin" and for women the challenge is "don't sleep with men or else you're a loser hoe". In a void, this is a 0 sum game, you can't satisfy both without one being a virgin/hoe. I think on one hand this tradition incentivises having 1 on 1 couples and partners. Men being told "you should find one" (to reproduce) while women being told "you shouldn't find too many" (to reporduce). This is I think because for a man it's difficult to get laid, you have to be attractive. For a woman, it's easy to get laid, you jsut had to be there and say yes.

For a man, it's a great achivement if you slept with 15 women, you're really cool for it. For a woman, it's a great achievement if you're in a long-term relationship with a man who loves you, you're really cool for it. By contrast, for a man being in a long-term relationship is neutral, you're not cool for it. For a woman, sleeping with 15 men is detrimental, you're bad for it. And when it comes to 0 body count i.e. virginity, for a man it's detrimental, you're bad for it. For a woman it's very positive, you're really cool for it, even guys whose advances you reject respect you for it. It's interesting how different of a game we sort of "play". And I don't think it's all because of cultural norms.

Youth is really unfair to women. Sure, men become less attractive from 25 onwards, but not by a lot, there's even some that say "men age like wine" although I disagree. But for women it's such a downhill curve. This incentivises women to find a partner early, i.e. to be attractive when they are young, and also to sleep around to when they are young (which they can't do because remember rule no.1 with body count bad).

In physical attractiveness being highly prioritized in the dating market I really think women have the upper hand here, because they at least know it. Men, for the most part, are not told that physical attractiveness being highly prioritized in the dating market. And there's plenty of women who would wear they prefer personality over looks further confusing them.

They don't. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, I'm saying a lot of those with "I prefer personality" don't really prefer personality. Some studies have shown that women are even more selective than men in terms of looks. Other that they are equal. The scientific consensus seems to be that "women care as much as men if not more about looks".

From online dating studies, to real life meetup studies. Even in the last study I looked up based on emotions:









Overall, men rank women more attractive than women rank men.

This is explained in another study by testosterone. Testosterone makes men less selective in terms of mating. The higher the testosterone, the less picky in terms of looks.

But specifically on the looks vs personality part, another study found that "women report they are more about personality, but actually they are about looks more, even more than men". They also found out that "women report that they themselves find personality the most important factor, but other women find looks the most important factor, the results were more congruent with how women found other women than with how women found themselves".

Self-stated for women: intelligence, honest, fun, looks.
Other women for women: looks, fun, intelligence, ambitious.
Actual: looks, intelligence, fun, honest.

Self-stated women importance: personality 35.2%, money 33.5%, looks 31.2%.
Actual women importance: looks 48.9%, personality 34.0%, money 17.0%.

The actual is based on analyzing the factors that actually led to a relationship. In other words, "what worked".

Why is that? Well, there's a study for that, which says that women may not really know what attracts them:

When analyzed, women had the same sexual arousement as men in response to watching pornography, but unlike men, they reported little or no increase in sexual desire in response to viewing porn. This leads the reasearchers to believe that it's possible that women are actually wired to not know what turns them on.

Which may be part of how human courtship works. Women present themselves as a valueable object and irregularly interested in men (since they don't really know what turns them on), this creates a random irregularly reinforcement schedule to incentivize male resource provision. 

In other words. It's like slot-machines. If women appear sometimes horny and attracted to you, and sometimes not horny and attracted to you, for seemingly random reasons, it incentivises you to put more resources in hopes of getting more of those horny and attracted to you moments.

In the same way slot-machines would not make betters to put a lot of money if they either never gave money or always gave money, they have to give money back at a random interval for there to be an incensive to try.

I'm not putting my hand in the fire that this is true, but I think it paints a pretty accurate picture.

So going back to the original point: physical attractiveness being highly prioritized in the dating market is an advantage for women, because at least they know that men want them for their looks. It sucks, but it's the truth, so they can make better decisions based on that, the vast majority of women work on their looks. For men, the same is true in women, with looks mattering a lot, the most, more than anything else, but they are not told that, in fact, often they are told the opposite. Leading to not making the best decisions because they don't know what attracts women, they are told it's personality but it's looks, all because women have an irregularly reinforcement psychology and they don't know themselves what they want. The game is the same for men & women in terms of looks, but at least women know what the game is.


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

Dezir said:


> There was another speech from Jordan Peterson that discussed that part.
> 
> I don't remember that speech that well but it went something like this: A lot of guys who are on women's march of hardcore feminists and are overly sympathetic are actually quite predatory. Their psychology is 'maybe if I am on their side they will sleep with me'.
> 
> ...


Omg, there was this dude I once worked with. He was a security guard, and he was massive. He intimidated the SHIT out of everyone. Like he could hold the door open for me, and I would just walk right under his arm without having to duck or anything. I always liked him though, he seemed very laid back. Chill. 

Then one day, I go into a company pot luck to look around. It was the tail end, so only a few people were in there, and we were just talking, about the food and stuff. He says, softly, "No one tried my cake." 😒

My heart jumped out of my chest in that moment. It was one of the most adorable things I've ever seen/heard in my life. "Did you make it?" "Yeah, I like baking." 

If I hadn't been at work I would have jumped over the table and just taken him right there. Lol!


----------



## laluna (2 mo ago)

Ms. Aligned said:


> Omg, there was this dude I once worked with. He was a security guard, and he was massive. He intimidated the SHIT out of everyone. Like he could hold the door open for me, and I would just walk right under his arm without having to duck or anything. I always liked him though, he seemed very laid back. Chill.
> 
> Then one day, I go into a company pot luck to look around. It was the tail end, so only a few people were in there, and we were just talking, about the food and stuff. He says, softly, "No one tried my cake." 😒
> 
> ...


Yuck, I can't stand being near big dudes. They make me so uncomfortable. I think it's a repressed memory I'm waiting to spring back to mind and ruin my life lol BUT that IS super adorable and I wish I could give that heart a hug!


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Ms. Aligned said:


> Omg, there was this dude I once worked with. He was a security guard, and he was massive. He intimidated the SHIT out of everyone. Like he could hold the door open for me, and I would just walk right under his arm without having to duck or anything. I always liked him though, he seemed very laid back. Chill.
> 
> Then one day, I go into a company pot luck to look around. It was the tail end, so only a few people were in there, and we were just talking, about the food and stuff. He says, softly, "No one tried my cake." 😒
> 
> ...


Lol I love having bid dudes as friends, I can be more of my wacky self at bars and shit and if anyone has a problem with it they can answer to my boy.


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

laluna said:


> Yuck, I can't stand being near big dudes. They make me so uncomfortable. I think it's a repressed memory I'm waiting to spring back to mind and ruin my life lol BUT that IS super adorable and I wish I could give that heart a hug!


This dude had to be like 7ft. I'm considered tall for a female so the fact I could walk under his extended arm without ducking says something. But it wasn't his size or mass, that made him incredibly sexy. It was the fact he understood it, compensated for it, and still wanted to be recognized as good person, with regular hobbies, and even sensitivity, that made me gush with feels. Almost like he couldn't escape his natural "masculinity", and wanted to be recognized as anything else.


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

intranst said:


> Lol I love having bid dudes as friends, I can be more of my wacky self at bars and shit and if anyone has a problem with it they can answer to my boy.


I bet they get that a lot.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Ms. Aligned said:


> I bet they get that a lot.


True, not like I’m intentionally using them for that though.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Squirt said:


> What do you suppose young girls learn about how to present themselves from this reaction to Britney Spears? How does this sort of thing influence the desire to be seen as “fierce” or a “girl boss” or a “bad bitch”?


I see what you mean by this and I agree. I will be screaming "Free Britney" until the day I die lol.

I think a similar thing happened with Beyonce. I believe she is an ISFJ, like typical hardworking/caring personality type. She got a lot of crap when she was younger for sounding stupid in interviews. Anyway she stopped doing candid interviews. Now everything she puts out is curated by her team. Don't we love her even more when she starts cursing and treating men like how they treat women? Taking her man to Red Lobster as a reward for sex. Being his "Sugar Mama" and telling him to come sit on her lap. Using her wealth to lavish him with gifts and "Upgrade" him? She took on a new persona during the single ladies era called Sasha Fierce. It is her alter-ego, an assertive sexy, young, female business mogul who is not afraid to forge ahead and demand what she wants out of life. 

Society was craving for this kind of caricature, I think. Because masculine traits in women (like assertiveness, competitiveness, entrepreneurial spirit, growth mindset, boundary setting, high standards, individuality, etc. are often not celebrated in day to day life).


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

intranst said:


> True, not like I’m intentionally using them for that though.


I get what you mean. When I was doing MMA and hung out after practice with all the guys, I felt a certain level of confidence. Like, try it, bitches. But they would be down as fuck if someone tried to mess with me. A certain feeling of being safe when I was with them.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Ms. Aligned said:


> I get what you mean. When I was doing MMA and hung out after practice with all the guys, I felt a certain level of confidence. Like, try it, bitches. But they would be down as fuck if someone tried to mess with me. A certain feeling of being safe when I was with them.


Out of curiosity, do you think that thinking type women in general get more respect from men because they tend toward being more straightforward?


----------



## laluna (2 mo ago)

OrchidSugar said:


> I see what you mean by this and I agree. I will be screaming "Free Britney" until the day I die lol.
> 
> I think a similar thing happened with Beyonce. I believe she is an ISFJ, like typical hardworking/caring personality type. She got a lot of crap when she was younger for sounding stupid in interviews. Anyway she stopped doing candid interviews. Now everything she puts out is curated by her team. Don't we love her even more when she starts cursing and treating men like how they treat women? Taking her man to Red Lobster as a reward for sex. Being his "Sugar Mama" and telling him to come sit on her lap. Using her wealth to lavish him with gifts and "Upgrade" him? She took on a new persona during the single ladies era called Sasha Fierce. It is her alter-ego, an assertive sexy, young, female business mogul who is not afraid to forge ahead and demand what she wants out of life.
> 
> Society was craving for this kind of caricature, I think. Because masculine traits in women (like assertiveness, competitiveness, entrepreneurial spirit, growth mindset, boundary setting, high standards, individuality, etc. are often not celebrated in day to day life).


That is interesting, I didn't know that about Beyonce. I don't know much about anyone though lol anyways

Assertiveness is such a weird thing. So many guys right now want assertiveness. Like I have no problem saying "hey, can I compliment you? You're very attractive." Or "hey, let's meet up tomorrow, are you free?" And they respond like "oh thanks for being forward. It's helpful." But online I would be told that this is too masculine? 

Where does #iknowwhatiwant crossover into #girlboss?


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

intranst said:


> Out of curiosity, do you think that thinking type women in general get more respect from men because they tend toward being more straightforward?


Not at all. If anything, it's the same scenario, just reversed. I feel like this is one of those Ni, and seeing beyond what's immediately in front of you, type of things. Men usually interpret my straightforwardness, as bitchiness, high maintenance, critical, or problematic. Guys don't seem to get the same response when they embrace both their masculine and feminine sides. I think it's because men are just men, but women (their thoughts, etc.) are seen as temporary reactions.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Ms. Aligned said:


> Omg, there was this dude I once worked with. He was a security guard, and he was massive. He intimidated the SHIT out of everyone. Like he could hold the door open for me, and I would just walk right under his arm without having to duck or anything. I always liked him though, he seemed very laid back. Chill.
> 
> Then one day, I go into a company pot luck to look around. It was the tail end, so only a few people were in there, and we were just talking, about the food and stuff. He says, softly, "No one tried my cake." 😒
> 
> ...


Exactly.

I remember that once I had this belief that "women don't like men who show emotions", "women don't like men who cry, you have to be stoic, otherwise you're a wuss". Until I did. And the women were even more supportive of men and became closer to them for showing emotions.

However, and this should be noted, if I were a skinny ugly-looking man it would have had the opposite effect, I would indeed really look the less of a man. But when you're already a masculine looking guy, or masculine enough guy, showing emotions is perfectly acceptable and even beneficial.

Of course, there are some women who would indeed see you less of a man if you cry or show emotions, no matter how muscular or well-built you are, otherwise the stereotype wouldn't exist, but these are some women, not all women.

I also like some feminine stuff and everyone is pefectly cool with it. To be noted, some women. Sometimes I've been reported that it's in fact those very same things that make me more attractive. Like, I don't like seeing blood, probably in the top 10 most unmanliest things to do, I really have a reaction to it. I like animals more than the average guy. Probably because they can empathize with you better? I don't know.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> Do you have an actual reasoning you believe that opinion is wrong or is more in the lines of you don't like this opinion so bad?
> 
> Furthemore, it was never a denigration of feminine traits, my last bulletpoint is a testament to that.
> 
> If you want a denigration of traits, look at feminists when they talk about masculine traits.


Can't speak for Squirt, but my take is that the statistics may not lie, but the _interpretation_ is what we have to be careful with.



Dezir said:


> I don't remember who said it, maybe Jordan Peterson, but it went something like this:
> 
> In USA, 43% of boys are raised by single mothers, 78% of teachers are female.
> So close to 50% of boys have a female influence only at home.
> ...


What kind of interpretations can we make? Is it the single mother's fault for raising men who don't know how to be men, or is it the (absent?) father's fault for not properly teaching and modeling? Also if kids are raised in single-parent households led by women, is it the woman's fault for not knowing how to choose a suitable partner, or is it the man's fault for not being careful with his seed? Is a mother being nurturing a sign of toxic female behavior that coddles a child and stunts its development? Or is a mother having to play all roles a stressful scenario that warps a child's understanding of household duties, sacrifices, and expectations?

I ask all of this because I truly don't think it's black and white. And I know many parents fall into the gray area, whether they are together in a relationship or not. The blame game is pointless IMO. And what I usually see from the extremes is "Modern men are trash and they are incompetent and worthless" or "Modern women are crazy feminists out to destroy the world." I just don't think it's helpful. Like what are we going to do about it? Because I do worry about the romantic nihilism that seems to be floating around the interwebs these days.


----------



## laluna (2 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I remember that once I had this belief that "women don't like men who show emotions", "women don't like men who cry, you have to be stoic, otherwise you're a wuss". Until I did. And the women were even more supportive of men and became closer to them for showing emotions.
> 
> ...












Skinny, short men at like 5'4" to 5'7" are HOT AF. Make em blonde with a bad attitude and I'm DEAD. 👀🙏🥰


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

laluna said:


> View attachment 911638
> 
> 
> Skinny, short men at like 5'4" to 5'7" are HOT AF. Make em blonde with a bad attitude and I'm DEAD. 👀🙏🥰


Let me just dye my hair real quick..


----------



## Ms. Aligned (Aug 26, 2021)

Dezir said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I remember that once I had this belief that "women don't like men who show emotions", "women don't like men who cry, you have to be stoic, otherwise you're a wuss". Until I did. And the women were even more supportive of men and became closer to them for showing emotions.
> 
> ...


I may not be the best at understanding these dynamics. One of my favorite Marvel characters is "Ze Incredibal Night Cwaler." I guess that "power", in my opinion, is not so simply labeled by gender norms. And more often recognized, or acknowledged, from experience, and self awareness.

I also once had the belief that men liked women who could be "one of the boys", or "weren't emotional at all." And then 9/10, they would be attracted to the exact opposite. Lol


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

laluna said:


> That is interesting, I didn't know that about Beyonce. I don't know much about anyone though lol anyways
> 
> Assertiveness is such a weird thing. So many guys right now want assertiveness. Like I have no problem saying "hey, can I compliment you? You're very attractive." Or "hey, let's meet up tomorrow, are you free?" And they respond like "oh thanks for being forward. It's helpful." But online I would be told that this is too masculine?
> 
> Where does #iknowwhatiwant crossover into #girlboss?


I really don't know. And I'm definitely not a very assertive person in general. I do think that assertive women are highly desired, but at the same time highly shamed. So it's very confusing. Many guys want them. But I think the fantasy of them can sometimes collide with the reality. If they are assertive with you then they are probably doing this everywhere in their lives. They're not just doing it romantically and making you feel comfortable to approach them. They will also do it to push back against you as well. And that reality doesn't feel as good. Idk.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> Can't speak for Squirt, but my take is that the statistics may not lie, but the _interpretation_ is what we have to be careful with.
> 
> What kind of interpretations can we make? Is it the single mother's fault for raising men who don't know how to be men, or is it the (absent?) father's fault for not properly teaching and modeling? Also if kids are raised in single-parent households led by women, is it the woman's fault for not knowing how to choose a suitable partner, or is it the man's fault for not being careful with his seed? Is a mother being nurturing a sign of toxic female behavior that coddles a child and stunts its development? Or is a mother having to play all roles a stressful scenario that warps a child's understanding of household duties, sacrifices, and expectations?
> 
> I ask all of this because I truly don't think it's black and white. And I know many parents fall into the gray area, whether they are together in a relationship or not. The blame game is pointless IMO. And what I usually see from the extremes is "Modern men are trash and they are incompetent and worthless" or "Modern women are crazy feminists out to destroy the world." I just don't think it's helpful. Like what are we going to do about it? Because I do worry about the romantic nihilism that seems to be floating around the interwebs these days.


I agree, in any study, the interpretation and methodology are up for debate.

I wouldn't say "fault" but I would say "product". It's not like they did this with intention or they wanted to do this to be their "fault". But the result is nonetheless that one. I wasn't looking on the personal side but simply the methodology. Yes, it's the father's fault for being absent, because the mother doesn't know how to be a father, and it's very weird to expect that from her. But the results are the same - men raised by single moms end up being vast majority of serial killers, school shooters, and just angry simps in general because they end up being way more feminine than masculine. They have a lot of idea how to be feminine, from their mothers and teachers, and no idea how to be masculine, for they have nobody to teach them that, and the result is terrible. As opposed to feminist expectations that we need more femininity in this world and less masculinity and the result would be good.

I would argue is it the woman's fault for not knowing how to choose a suitable partner, because she is the one that ends up suffering. The man just came & went, he's probably doing fine. It's the ones who suffer that have to be careful.

If you walk at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood and end up getting robbed. It's the robber's fault for robbing you or your own fault for putting yourself in that position to begin with? of course it's the robber's fault, but at the same time we have to consider that the roober just came & went, he's probably doing fine right now. While you are the one who ended up suffering. And you have your share of blame for walking at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood.

You can't expect robbers not to rob, but you can't expect yourself not to walk at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood, you have a responsability there. Youcan blame it on him, and it's clearly his fault, but it will not change much, and you are the one who ended up suffering.

I think it's rather dumb to try to control other people than try to control yourself in these scenarios.

By "fault/blame" I mostly mean "the actor that could have avoided it", because if we use blame in a traditional sense the answer is dead obvious the robber. But at the same time, you can't expect robbers not to rob. It's the one who will end up suffering who has the responsability to avoid it therefore "fault/blame" although objectively is not really their fault as they are not the perpetrator, but they put themselves in that position. And yes, sometimes it's innevitable or impossible to predict, I agree, but most of the time it's not. Sometimes it's just bad luck, most of the times it's not.

Depends how nurturing. I'm of the opinon that a parent (both male and female) should cultivate their child not simply raise him. Because a child already raises himself alone, he will age up every year. If you're the over-protective & critical parent you stunt that growth, it's not a nurturing trait but selfish if anything as you only want him/her for yourself, not what's best for him/her.

This is not nurturing:









I don't think it's helpful either. But I think those extremes are just a loud minority.



laluna said:


> View attachment 911638
> 
> 
> Skinny, short men at like 5'4" to 5'7" are HOT AF. Make em blonde with a bad attitude and I'm DEAD. 👀🙏🥰


So it was only the height you found false. And they have to have "a bad attitude" meaning the opposite of showing emotions.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> I would argue is it the woman's fault for not knowing how to choose a suitable partner, because she is the one that ends up suffering. The man just came & went, he's probably doing fine. It's the ones who suffer that have to be careful.
> 
> If you walk at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood and end up getting robbed. It's the robber's fault for robbing you or your own fault for putting yourself in that position to begin with? of course it's the robber's fault, but at the same time we have to consider that the roober just came & went, he's probably doing fine right now. While you are the one who ended up suffering. And you have your share of blame for walking at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood.
> 
> ...


I understand what you're saying with the robber scenario, but there are two ills that need to be addressed. Ignorance on one side, and crime on the other. If we are talking from the societal perspective of how to improve these issues for the betterment of society, then we would of course want to talk about preventing these problems from reoccurring. Teaching you how to spot and avoid a robber is helpful, but not foolproof. Addressing the root causes of why people rob can be helpful, but not foolproof. I think if we only address women knowing how to pick better fathers, without addressing what is causing men to abandon (or don't forget what is causing even stable long term couples to divorce in the first place) then we are doing a disservice. Otherwise you end up with a larger population of informed, knowledgeable women who want to be mothers in committed relationships for the long haul, while the population of absent fathers remains the same or even increases. That's why I say it's better to burn the candle at both ends without assigning blame. We're interested in solutions of course.




Dezir said:


> This is not nurturing:


Come on now 😅😅😅


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Dezir said:


> Do you have an actual reasoning you believe that opinion is wrong or is more in the lines of you don't like this opinion so bad?
> 
> Furthemore, it was never a denigration of feminine traits, my last bulletpoint is a testament to that.


"Furthermore" usually follows as an assertion rather than a question.



Dezir said:


> Have you ever noticed how the vast majority of: serial killers, school shooters, and just angry simps in general are way more feminine than masculine?


I've met plenty of men who are on the feminine side who are not dysfunctional. This statement seems to point to femininity being a dangerous problem.



Dezir said:


> Probably there are exceptions I can't think of, but I'm willing to bet that there's way more serial killers, school shooters that look like Elliot Rodgers than serial killers, school shooters that look like Andrew Tate.


I wouldn't call Carl Panzram feminine.

Your assumption that there is something "wrong" with a feminine-looking man compared to a masculine one seems to be causing a bias, which again is reinforcing the idea that femineity is inferior.



Dezir said:


> You grow up with a female-predominated enviroment around you, they teach you feminist stuff, you grow up frustrated because whatever you do is not working:
> 
> You don't look as cool as you want to do and repress that part of yourself, so repressed inferiority complex towards other men.
> You don't get female attention maybe friendzone as best because you're such a nice female guy but don't make them feel emotions, so repressed sexual impulses.
> ...




So, my take-aways from this that women hurt men with their feminine influence because:

-It interferes with being competitive
-Can't be cool (lol, K-Pop bands proves this isn't true)
-It interferes with being sexy
-Wanting to please others is a feminine trait and is weak

Feminine traits = weak, ineffectual, self-destructive (where women can be those things but not men)



Dezir said:


> We are dealt a different stack of cards. So a man learning exclusively from a woman will likely end up a frustrated man who fails in life and the best case scenario he becomes a simp or a radical feminist while worst case scenario he becomes a serial killer or school shooters. It's never people who are content in life that do this.


I can't even begin to tease apart all the prejudices in this statement. I don't see how this is a testament to acceptance of feminine influences and not denigrating.

But this opinion seems to be the norm... which again, reinforces what I've been observing. I don't have much respect for Jordan Peterson's views.



OrchidSugar said:


> Society was craving for this kind of caricature, I think. Because masculine traits in women (like assertiveness, competitiveness, entrepreneurial spirit, growth mindset, boundary setting, high standards, individuality, etc. are often not celebrated in day to day life).


I'd say it is because a _caricature _of masculine traits in a woman provides an illusion of power and respect that women perceive men have by behaving a certain way.

Feminine women can't: set boundaries, be individuals, have an entrepreneurial spirit, want to grow or have high standards, or be assertive?

Hm.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Squirt said:


> Feminine women can't: set boundaries, be individuals, have an entrepreneurial spirit, want to grow or have high standards, or be assertive?
> Hm.


Oh I wasn't arguing that. Just saying that sometimes society will shame these qualities out of women and that it is a fine tightrope to walk.



Squirt said:


> But this opinion seems to be the norm... which again, reinforces what I've been observing. I don't have much respect for Jordan Peterson's views.


@Dezir - Oh yeah I forgot to mention that I like Jordan Peterson and I usually can follow along with his analysis quite well and I can agree with a lot of it. But I wouldn't put too much stock into what he says as gospel. He is an old man who hasn't been in the dating world for many decades now. Wise as he is, his own daughter chose "incorrectly" the first time and became a divorced single mom. I think it's very human to make mistakes in love and romance. Or for life situations to not go as planned. And she is very soft and feminine-looking, but has a lot of personality traits that could be considered masculine. I don't know how anyone could look at her success and conclude that she isn't worthy of love because she's not feminine enough.

Also Jordan Peterson's poor wife cannot get a word in edge-wise whenever they are involved in a conversation together. The good doctor cuts his wife off in conversation every few seconds trying to translate her own thoughts and ideas to the audience lol. It's like we get it buddy. Very chivalrous, but I'm sure she can do it on her own. Some of us would like to hear her thoughts.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> I understand what you're saying with the robber scenario, but there are two ills that need to be addressed. Ignorance on one side, and crime on the other. If we are talking from the societal perspective of how to improve these issues for the betterment of society, then we would of course want to talk about preventing these problems from reoccurring. Teaching you how to spot and avoid a robber is helpful, but not foolproof. Addressing the root causes of why people rob can be helpful, but not foolproof. I think if we only address women knowing how to pick better fathers, without addressing what is causing men to abandon (or don't forget what is causing even stable long term couples to divorce in the first place) then we are doing a disservice. Otherwise you end up with a larger population of informed, knowledgeable women who want to be mothers in committed relationships for the long haul, while the population of absent fathers remains the same or even increases. That's why I say it's better to burn the candle at both ends without assigning blame. We're interested in solutions of course.
> 
> Come on now 😅😅😅


I agree, however, I think it's far easier to teach women how to pick better fathers, than teach men who abandon not to abandon.

And the reason for this is motivation.

Women, like the person getting robbed, have all the motivation in the world not to end up with a shallow boyfriend who leaves them, possible victims of robbery have all the motivation in the world to not get robbed.

By contrast, robbers have all the motivation in the world to in fact rob, because it's beneficial to them, just like abandoning fathers have all the motivation in the world to just sleep with the woman and leave because it's beneficial to them.

In the same way, a man ending up with a gold digger is his fault. Sure, he gold digger is the perpetrator and the man the victim. But: the man could have prevented it, the woman didn't want to prevent it, she wanted to cause it.

None of these are foolproof indeed, but one of them is easier to do, and more beneficial than the other.

If you have 100 women not knowing how to choose a suitable partner, and 100 men knowing how to seduce women but in fact don't give a crap about them. You fix 80% of those men, you're going to have 100 women vs 20 men, so the stats won't change that much. They will simply sleep around with more. You fix 80% of those women, the stats will change a lot. Same I think is true for robbery. If you're a victim you're a victim, it's not a matter of who but when, if it wasn't that guy it was the other guy. As a general tendency speaking rather than just having bad luck (because it happens).

What is causing men to abandon? 90% of the time they didn't want a stable relationship and just wanted to fool the woman. And the woman was guillable enough to fall for it. You just have to look good and be charming and 90% of women will respond positive to you.

When women have an abundance of guys, they are very selective with guys (you can probably relate with that as a woman). Average looking or unattractive guys don't have the same situation. But highly attractive guys have exact the same situation but with women, in reverse, having an abundance of women, not knowing what to pick, and knowing women will always be there for him, but he also wants some sex.

It's not that they want to be mothers in committed relationships for the long haul, I believe no single mom wants to be a single mom. It's that they can't spot bad men, that's what they need to work on. In this sense kids that are raised in single-parent households led by women, is it the woman's fault for not knowing how to choose a suitable partner. Bad actors will always exist, it's up to you to protect from them. Whether we talk about absent fathers or criminals.

Because with blame comes responbility. Sure, you can blame the absent father, and you are right, they have the lion's share of the blame, but it won't change anything, because that situation was in their advantage, they don't want to change, it was a lose-win situation for the woman.

So, those women would protect themselves. Which by default I think it means the population of absent fathers decreases, because there won't be as many single moms anymore. Women who fall to their fuckboy tricks. I agree that it should be worked on both sides, but I think the candle will burn better on one side because women already have the motivation.

What motivation can you offer to the fuckboys to stay with a woman that they've already screwed around with and now have an unwanted child? Keep in mind that they have an abundance of women so they can always find another women and a better one.



> @Dezir - Oh yeah I forgot to mention that I like Jordan Peterson and I usually can follow along with his analysis quite well and I can agree with a lot of it. But I wouldn't put too much stock into what he says as gospel. He is an old man who hasn't been in the dating world for many decades now. Wise as he is, his own daughter chose "incorrectly" the first time and became a divorced single mom. I think it's very human to make mistakes in love and romance. Or for life situations to not go as planned. And she is very soft and feminine-looking, but has a lot of personality traits that could be considered masculine. I don't know how anyone could look at her success and conclude that she isn't worthy of love because she's not feminine enough.
> 
> Also Jordan Peterson's poor wife cannot get a word in edge-wise whenever they are involved in a conversation together. The good doctor cuts his wife off in conversation every few seconds trying to translate her own thoughts and ideas to the audience lol. It's like we get it buddy. Very chivalrous, but I'm sure she can do it on her own. Some of us would like to hear her thoughts


I agree, Jordan Peterson is a world renowned psychologist but he is by far not bulletproof. And I think that's the biggest issue with the world so far, we aren't capable of nouanced thinking anymore. You can be the biggest fan or the biggest hater of Joe, and yet still agree or disagree with some of Joe's points. Joe isn't bulletproof, take his points through your own filter. And is equally important to disassociate the individual from the idea. It doesn't matter who said it, it matters what was said.

We should learn to keep information independent from the person who said it. Sure, sometimes this is useful like if a doctor tells you that you have a problem he's probably right because he has credientials. If a study says something it's probably right because it was made by scientists. But that's were it stops. And even that isn't bulletproof, the doctor could be wrong, the scientists would have used wrong or unrepresneatitive data and flawed methodology. Doctors & scientists are right because what they say is right, what they say is in accorance with reality, not because they are the ones saying it. It's about what they say, not about them being doctors or scientists.

A great example of this is Andrew Tate, Andrew Tate is right about a lot of things, except when it comes to women. And I think that makes a lot of sense, he is a playboy millionare, a lot of women are going to be attracted to him, and a lot of women are going to be gold diggers going for him. So that's the average woman he will experience in his life. As such, a lot of his opinions are based on that average woman he experiences because that's what he thinks is the average woman. Ie, his own status blocks him for seeing women who are not like that because women who are not like that would not go for him.

Since we were on this subject previously, a woman who wants a long-term commited relationship with a loving partner and to have a family with 2 kids, a supportive husband and all that stuff, a woman with depth and sensitivity and care who don't "whore" herself to be with Tate. Or a woman who is not a gold digger and doesn't come for money. How many women like that do you think Andrew Tate sees on a regular basis? my guess is 0. His perception is built on the women he interacts with because of his status, not on the women in general. Short version is that Tate is a magnet to gold diggers because he's rich, and his perception is going to be schewed by that. But he's right about most other things though. As said originally, you can agree on some things and disagree on some things with a person, we don't do that anymore. We're either all-in or all-out, live a hive mind. This is not good or constructive in any way.



Squirt said:


> "Furthermore" usually follows as an assertion rather than a question.
> 
> I've met plenty of men who are on the feminine side who are not dysfunctional. This statement seems to point to femininity being a dangerous problem.
> 
> ...


Saying that it was never a denigration of feminine traits, my last bulletpoint is a testament to that was an assertion not a question.

I agree, there are a lot of men who are on the feminine side who are not dysfunctional, gay men being the best example. However, that doesn't exclude the fact that the vast majority of: serial killers, school shooters, and just angry simps in general are way more feminine than masculine. Seems more like a whataboutism.

I wouldn't call Carl Panzram feminine either, which is exactly why I said that there are probably there are exceptions I can't think of. I never said 100% of them are like that, I said the majority are like that.

The issue I see with my assumption is that you reach a conclusion without providing a premise or reasoning. You simply jump to the conclusion. Why is that a bias? you have yet to prove that. As you've already jumped to the conclusion that it's true by default. It isn't.

Pretty much spot on:
It interferes with being competitive -> True, not being competitive at all makes you fail in life, especially when you are a man and are given different cards.
Can't be cool (lol, K-Pop bands proves this isn't true) -> as weird as it sounds, K-pop bands are very masculine, they just are feminine looking. I'm talking about behavior here not looks.
It interferes with being sexy -> Yes, a man who is like a woman in behavior is not sexy. Who is the judge of that? women. Not their words but their actions. Of course women would love and defend them as a BFF but most of the time it's these men who don't get any women and end up frustrated simps who eventually do bad stuff because they are frustrated with their lot in life.
Wanting to please others is a feminine trait and is weak -> No, it's good for women, weak for men, because men and women are given different cards in life, they are seen different.

Feminine traits = weak, ineffectual, self-destructive (where women can be those things but not men) -> Nope. Feminine traits = weak, ineffectual, self-destructive (where women can be those things but not men) IF you don't have any masculine traits.

Please, do begin to tease apart all the prejudices in this statement. It will be a good start for once.

Because We are dealt a different stack of cards. It was never a denigrating of feminine traits, because we don't play the same game. A man doing what a woman does will not have the same effect. In the same way a woman doing what a man does will not have the same effect.

Sure, feminism, but go to the gym as a woman, get ripped, and then make a Tinder account, I would love to see how many men love you for that. There was this female bodybuilder article. The comments were full of jokes about her from men, do you think an article about a ripped man would have a comment section full of jokes from women?


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Squirt said:


> I’m not talking about getting into fist fights. I mean in terms of defending a reputation, or to be taken seriously.
> 
> There was some talk going around when Elizabeth Holmes was in the limelight that some high-position women lower the timbre of their voices when speaking professionally, for instance. This isn’t to say it is an effective strategy, but like I said, being feminine is widely treated as ineffectual.
> 
> ...


Lets put it this way, IF women were MORE competent than men ON AVERAGE across the board, at all careers, people would likely change their perception to assume the opposite i.e take women more seriously, it's the same shit as why the jury/courts usually favor women when theres an accusation made on a man and during divorce court, women are just assumed and seen as the better parent or more likely the victim just coz of her gender and how she appears.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

laluna said:


> That's an interesting question because being disarming can be perceived before words are spoken. Think of a chihuahua, right? You see it and think "oh...cute..small...innocent" until it's obviously a psycho breed of dog every single time.
> 
> It gives you the opportunity to see people for real. If you look like you can be taken advantage of you will know the ones that try to are awful, no lies or deception. I love small women and men, they always end up being friggin psycho, probably because they _had_ to be to survive. I'm impressed by this.
> 
> They have the surprise effect at their disposal as well. It's like a jump scare, like using a super bright flashlight to surprise someone and get away.


Being disarming is an effective strategy, but it doesn't mean you'll need to conclude that being psycho is the only tactic that follows. Sure, people who are nice will have people that try to take advantage of them, but to survive I think more of them became better at disarming, noticing bad situations, judging people's character, or doing something else.

And thanks for posting the video, it was a good watch.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Squirt said:


> @Lonewaer Safety can mean a lot of things. As in, “a safe bet.” It does not have to be literal physical safety. That thinking is so primitive, especially when I already clarified the sense I was using the word. It isn’t that hard.
> 
> Anyway, you sound deeply entrenched in a sexist view with strict gender roles. It is not surprising that you cannot fathom what it means to be disarming, or understand women’s relationship with violence compared to men.


Insults and shaming language, nice. You guys never fail to resort to this do you ? That's pure toxic femininity by the way, how on-topic. Thank you for demonstrating what that looks like. Using words to get someone to assault you/misstep so you can then play the victim card. Another manifestation of it is the amount of support, including by an admin, for a post that's overtly insulting, simply because I didn't paint women in a good light, and even though what I said is objectively verifiable.

That's the main reason why some women get beaten up by their boyfriend/husband, just so you know, a direct consequence of not understanding the ins and outs of violence. So you can scream "sexism" left and right if you want, it doesn't disprove the truth of it.


----------



## Gamine (5 mo ago)

I assume by the title this is a circle jerk thread.


----------



## laluna (2 mo ago)

Gamine said:


> I assume by the title this is a circle jerk thread.


I'm sorry. It isn't. I was actually curious if anyone had seen this happening or was involved in it.


----------



## Gamine (5 mo ago)

laluna said:


> I'm sorry. It isn't. I was actually curious if anyone had seen this happening or was involved in it.


I should probably go back and actually, read the thread. So many circle jerk threads on the daily and all.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Lonewaer said:


> Insults and shaming language, nice. You guys never fail to resort to this do you ? That's pure toxic femininity by the way, how on-topic. Thank you for demonstrating what that looks like. Using words to get someone to assault you/misstep so you can then play the victim card. Another manifestation of it is the amount of support, including by an admin, for a post that's overtly insulting, simply because I didn't paint women in a good light, and even though what I said is objectively verifiable.
> 
> That's the main reason why some women get beaten up by their boyfriend/husband, just so you know, a direct consequence of not understanding the ins and outs of violence. So you can scream "sexism" left and right if you want, it doesn't disprove the truth of it.


Are you making the case that words control a man's fist?


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Lonewaer said:


> *Believe it or not, the way society was functioning 100 years ago was working out very well for everyone.*


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Some women: We would like the opportunity to earn wages for our labor and spend those wages as we see fit. We would also like to have access to job opportunities that are not physically-taxing. 

Some men: And we took that personally. 

Some women: Hmm. It seems like we are being paid less than men for the same amount of work. I wonder if we should demand equal wages. 

Some men: Well since you like equality so much, well then I guess you wouldn't mind being hit like a man. I guess you wouldn't mind opening the door for yourself. I guess you wouldn't mind catching these hands. 

Women: Wait no... We rather like it when you treat us nicely---

Some men: Nope! Too damn late. Shouldn't have wanted to be a man.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Lonewaer said:


> Insults and shaming language, nice. You guys never fail to resort to this do you ? That's pure toxic femininity by the way, how on-topic. Thank you for demonstrating what that looks like. Using words to get someone to assault you/misstep so you can then play the victim card. Another manifestation of it is the amount of support, including by an admin, for a post that's overtly insulting, simply because I didn't paint women in a good light, and even though what I said is objectively verifiable.
> 
> That's the main reason why some women get beaten up by their boyfriend/husband, just so you know, a direct consequence of not understanding the ins and outs of violence. So you can scream "sexism" left and right if you want, it doesn't disprove the truth of it.


Yes, your comments were sexist and showed a profound ignorance as to what women experience, just as this comment does. If that insults you, maybe look at why what you said might be considered insulting and sexist to others, first. Don’t dish it out unless you can take it.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Since this thread isn't about gendered violence I have threadbanned a member in order to maintain the conversation going about the topic.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

OrchidSugar said:


> There are definitely feminine and masculine traits that will get you ahead at work. It’s just the unhealthy expressions that get you into trouble. Like look at politics. Nobody wants to go to war. Better to form alliances. Soft skills like networking and relationship building are like fundamental skills for most workplaces, and I think that’s considered a feminine trait.


Unless it becomes profitable or useful it'll be feminine.










And once it's established as useful if a woman does it it will be relentlessly picked apart and doubted.

Fuck this stupid species.


https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31602/is-this-a-photo-of-margaret-hamilton-standing-next-to-apollo-project-code-that-s







Lonewaer said:


> Believe it or not, the way society was functioning 100 years ago was working out very well for everyone.


It worked well for the people writing the accounts of how things worked, you mean. How interesting.

Again, fuck this stupid species.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> Some women: Hmm. It seems like we are being paid less than men for the same amount of work. I wonder if we should demand equal wages.


Hold up, the wage gap is based on stats from the average of ALL working men and women, it does not take into account the type of job, position, experience, hours worked, competence or anything hence why people dismiss it.

Heres an article showing what happened when Google tried to rectify the gender "wage gap".









Google Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men as It Addresses Wage Equity (Published 2019)


After a recent study, the company gave raises to thousands of men after determining they were earning less than women in similar jobs.




www.nytimes.com





I'm bringing this up coz at my work, the barrier to entry for women is basically if you're female and you're interested in STEM, you're hired and for men it's 10 years + of proven work experience, 3 interviews + 1 technical interview, must have delivered large scaled projects, perfect references etc... So you often see unqualified women (obviously since barrier to entry was so low) getting paid the same salary yet doing essentially nothing. (Not her fault, she just applied for a high paying STEM job and was accepted, I'd do the same in her shoes).


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

What is the gender pay gap? | WGEA







www.wgea.gov.au


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

ENTJudgement said:


> Hold up, the wage gap is based on stats from the average of ALL working men and women, it does not take into account the type of job, position, experience, hours worked, competence or anything hence why people dismiss it.
> 
> Heres an article showing what happened when Google tried to rectify the gender "wage gap".
> 
> ...


Ok I will check that out. I was referring to someone else, though, who was fantasizing about how much better life was like 100 years ago. Women were even asking for equal pay then. And I was reading an article that explained that factory working men received about 40 cents/hr vs women receiving 25 cents/hr. Then it was written into some laws that a female employee be paid less.






Women in the Workplace (Issue) | Encyclopedia.com


WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE (ISSUE) Over a 120-year period the identity of the woman worker has changed dramatically. From the 1820s, with the onset of industrialization in the United States, until 1940, the average female employee was young and single. If married, a woman working outside the home...




www.encyclopedia.com




.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> Ok I will check that out. I was referring to someone else, though, who was fantasizing about how much better life was like 100 years ago. Women were even asking for equal pay then. And I was reading an article that explained that factory working men received about 40 cents/hr vs women receiving 25 cents/hr. Then it was written into some laws that a female employee be paid less.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh right, yeah it was unfair af on women 100 years ago no question if we're talking about equality of opportunity.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Why are Youtube videos so massive?

* *











It's hard to control for all the factors such as: 
How do we count CEO's bonuses? Are we counting them?
How much are full-timers worth than part-timers in the workplace?
How would we adjust for a gender's personal preferences?

I think the video I included is a fair assessment of pay in America between the two genders, but I included the glassdoor quote below:



https://research-content.glassdoor.com/app/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/Glassdoor-Gender-Pay-Gap-Study.pdf



"Before any statistical controls, men earn on average between 14.3 percent and 24.1 percent more than women across the five countries we examined, ranging from the smallest “unadjusted” gender gap in France (14.3 percent) and the largest pay gap in the United States (24.1 percent). Once we statistically control for every difference we’re able to observe between men and women—including job title and specific employer names—we still find an “adjusted” gender pay gap internationally, ranging between 3.9 percent in Australia and 6.3 percent in France. *This amounts to women earning on average between 94 cents and 96 cents per dollar earned by men. *Although those gaps are smaller than appear from a simple comparison of average male and female pay, they are a large and statistically significant difference between male and female earnings. " -From Glassdoor's Report, page 46.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

secondpassing said:


> Why are Youtube videos so massive?
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


The pandemic has widened the wage gap worldwide so that wouldn't be accurate. There are more aspects involved in the gap which include fertility, unpaid caring and domestic work, the feminising of roles (and lessening in value) of those roles and barriers to work in work dominated by males. According to the govt link I posted above there is a 14.1 percent gap here in Aus. I would think that the US would have a somewhat similar gap.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

beth x said:


> The pandemic has widened the wage gap worldwide so that wouldn't be accurate. There are more aspects involved in the gap which include fertility, unpaid caring and domestic work, the feminising of roles (and lessening in value) of those roles and barriers to work in work dominated by males. According to the govt link I posted above there is a 14.1 percent gap here in Aus. I would think that the US would have a somewhat similar gap.


This report is from 2016 and studies the adjusted wage gap between 5 countries, one of those being the US and one of them being Australia. It is 5.4% for in the US and 3.9% in AUS. The unadjusted is 24.4% and 17.3%, back in 2016, based on Glassdoor salaries. The question we should ask to our societies is: which numbers do we care about?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

secondpassing said:


> This report is from 2016 and studies the adjusted wage gap between 5 countries, one of those being the US and one of them being Australia. It is 5.4% for in the US and 3.9% in AUS. The unadjusted is 24.4% and 17.3%, back in 2016, based on Glassdoor salaries. The question we should ask to our societies is: which numbers do we care about?


There has been a widening of the wage gap since 2016. It's widened in the last 6 months here.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

The wage gap in industries. 





__





Hard choices on necessities for Australian women as gender pay gap persists | WGEA







www.wgea.gov.au


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

beth x said:


> There has been a widening of the wage gap since 2016. It's widened in the last 6 months here.





beth x said:


> The wage gap in industries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah yes, I read that article.

Personally, I'm not as concerned about the statistics that are unadjusted. If women want to stay home, work in nursing, or whatnot, I think that's fine. I'm probably going into the education field myself and it is predominantly women who work those jobs, and I'll get paid less. Not that I think teachers shouldn't be paid more, but that's also not something I have a solution to. There is still, however, workplace discrimination and not pleasant work cultures. These should be gone.

I also wonder if we could somehow get more women into mining, construction, and logistics. But I think equalizing the outcomes based on gender might do weird things to the economy. Might help reduce the gruffness of the work culture though.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

secondpassing said:


> Ah yes, I read that article.
> 
> Personally, I'm not as concerned about the statistics that are unadjusted. If women want to stay home, work in nursing, or whatnot, I think that's fine. I'm probably going into the education field myself and it is predominantly women who work those jobs, and I'll get paid less. Not that I think teachers shouldn't be paid more, but that's also not something I have a solution to. There is still, however, workplace discrimination and not pleasant work cultures. These should be gone.
> 
> I also wonder if we could somehow get more women into mining, construction, and logistics. But I think equalizing the outcomes based on gender might do weird things to the economy. Might help reduce the gruffness of the work culture though.


Some people are concerned about the wage gap. Our govt was voted in on the election promise that "nobody gets left behind" meaning that they would act on the increasing wage gap, they would give marginalised people a fair go, that women should feel safe in their workplace and that First Nation people got a voice to parliament. We still have people voting (which is compulsory) for their interests and are demanding the specific promises to be filled by the govt. Women vote here, they should be represented, shouldn't they?

We have free places for people going into nursing degrees and teaching degrees atm. They should get higher wages. They are holding the future after all, and higher wages would also be an inducement for more teachers. People are dropping out of teaching because there are too few in that sector now, they are overworked with a ratio of students to teachers too high to sustain. Raising the overall rate would also incentivise men to that sector.

Nurses are striking atm because they are suffering burnout with COVID and their patient to nurse ratios are unsustainable as well. Pay needs to be there to incentivise a new group to get into and ease the burden of current nurses.

Women in mining have been around for decades Western Australia is built on mining, but women in mining have had a pretty shit go with harassment at work. ‘Absolutely confronting’: the sickening stories of sexual harassment of women in mining

If you make a choice to go into any area of work, then it should be that you don't have to face gendered harassment in your work and you should be able to access the same pay as men. We aren't living in the 1920s now and it should be reflected that we've had the vote for over 100 years. We don't live the same way. Women don't give up work once they are married and buying a house is impossible for most people who are partnered let alone single. Making the wage gap disappear will be good for both men and women.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

If a large enterprise made even 3-6% profit over the previous year, thats regarded as a job well done, if women who are equally competent as their male counterparts working in the same job, same hours, same position, same experience, same outcome, and the stats that you're linking is actually true i.e 14.3 percent and 24.1 differential between the genders, every employer would only hire women.

They're willing to outsource work to other countries, everyone who picks up the phone when you ring tech support seems to be Indian working from India etc... You think they wouldn't hire all women for a 14.3 percent and 24.1 bump in profits? I mean theres only so much you can read before you realize how unrealistic it is.

The first thing I'd be doing as a C.E.O of a large enterprise if this was legit is to check this and start hiring all women.

Women's soccer team, WNBA etc... all cry about the gender wage gap and when you look into it, WNBA makes a 10mill loss a year, expects to be paid similar amounts as the NBA making billions, the WNBA is literally afloat coz the NBA is carrying them.

Women's soccer, they gave them the male version of the contract only to have them reject it coz they were making more with their old contract.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

laluna said:


> Yuck, I can't stand being near big dudes. They make me so uncomfortable.


Well that works out because I also can't stand being around little women that are afraid of me.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

ENTJudgement said:


> If a large enterprise made even 3-6% profit over the previous year, thats regarded as a job well done, if women who are equally competent as their male counterparts working in the same job, same hours, same position, same experience, same outcome, and the stats that you're linking is actually true i.e 14.3 percent and 24.1 differential between the genders, every employer would only hire women.
> 
> They're willing to outsource work to other countries, everyone who picks up the phone when you ring tech support seems to be Indian working from India etc... You think they wouldn't hire all women for a 14.3 percent and 24.1 bump in profits? I mean theres only so much you can read before you realize how unrealistic it is.
> 
> ...


This is the type of roadblocking excuses that creates a glass ceiling for women in work environments. First off you say that men have wage gaps too (essentially saying there isn't one) and then you say the reasons why - women aren't worth it and it's unrealistic to expect that women can earn the same as men. All of this while not even quoting me.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

ENTJudgement said:


> If a large enterprise made even 3-6% profit over the previous year, thats regarded as a job well done, if women who are equally competent as their male counterparts working in the same job, same hours, same position, same experience, same outcome, and the stats that you're linking is actually true i.e 14.3 percent and 24.1 differential between the genders, every employer would only hire women.
> 
> They're willing to outsource work to other countries, everyone who picks up the phone when you ring tech support seems to be Indian working from India etc... You think they wouldn't hire all women for a 14.3 percent and 24.1 bump in profits? I mean theres only so much you can read before you realize how unrealistic it is.
> 
> ...


I've never been at a company where there are men and women doing the same roles. That said I like techie roles, most women that have started on this route, move to management of some sort or the other as soon as possible where as most the guys are happy to stay techie and put in the extra hours to stay ahead of the technology curve.

However, I have seen more than a few occasions, where the peeps who stay ahead of the technology curve are then blamed as they don't "mentor" the other staff (this is not limited to women by any means) who can't be bothered to stay ahead and thus become irrelevant and unemployable as their skills are out of date.


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

Oop wrong thread


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Squirt said:


> Yeah, this is going nowhere. Not sure why I bothered.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> I've never been at a company where there are men and women doing the same roles. That said I like techie roles, most women that have started on this route, move to management of some sort or the other as soon as possible where as most the guys are happy to stay techie and put in the extra hours to stay ahead of the technology curve.
> 
> However, I have seen more than a few occasions, where the peeps who stay ahead of the technology curve are then blamed as they don't "mentor" the other staff (this is not limited to women by any means) who can't be bothered to stay ahead and thus become irrelevant and unemployable as their skills are out of date.


This observation of yours is interesting to me because in my career, there was a lot of pressure to take on management roles in order to get a pay raise, where staying abreast of the field and showcasing technical skills or simply "putting in more hours" towards my skillset did not yield better job offers (to my chagrin, as I prefer technical roles). 

I also got the sense that men in the field were viewed as more competent than women, regardless of their qualifications. Some studies back this up:

Gender Bias Sways How We Perceive Competence in Faces – Association for Psychological Science – APS



> Again, the data suggested a gender bias in first impressions: As male faces increased in masculinity, so did their perceived competence. For female faces, this relationship only held up to a point, after which more masculine female faces were actually perceived as less competent.


There are also numerous accounts of how trans-men experience a sudden difference in how they are treated at work:

How Transgender Workers Experience the Gender Gap - Bloomberg



> Abelson interviewed 66 trans men around the United States. Most reported being seen as more competent, being taken more seriously, and having their authority questioned less after they transitioned.* “*A majority of the people I interviewed felt that they had some kind of moment where, if they didn't already believe that sexism existed, this gave them proof,” Abelson says.


There was a stand-out instance I witnessed where an older and highly qualified woman was the head of a project and mentoring a young man, but by virtue of being a man, when they were standing side-by-side he was approached by another professional first as the knowledge authority and she was assumed to be some elderly secretary! I am willing to bet that would never happen if the genders were reversed. In another instance, I had one supervisor who was a very tall and "authoritative looking" man, and the way people responded to him compared to his (arguably more intelligent and technically advanced) female colleague who was the head of another department was pretty stark.

If people trusted your expertise merely because of how "masculine" you looked or behaved, all other things being equal, I can see how it would be easier to stay in a technical role and get paid decently while being able to be high achieving. Of course, this flies in the face of ego-desires about our achievements being hard-won based on our personal agency and ability. Who wants to believe that success they worked hard for might also be partially handed to them or taken away due to factors outside of their control? It's a tough pill to swallow.

When I was younger, I'd refuse to acknowledge that my gender might be a handicap to my career aspirations. I didn't realize I was working extra hard for it and had to defend myself more often than men were, that I was implicitly trying to be a good "representative" of women in a male-dominated field, and how that fueled things like perfectionism and imposter syndrome. (You also see these complexes and concerns develop more often for ethnic minority or other historically disadvantaged/oppressed groups.)

So, I expect there are different pressures on women to go for management roles to earn a good living and assert their skillsets (and slowly changing a paradigm about women in authoritative positions). In the thick of it, I thought men and women both experienced this pressure the same, but maybe not. 

Now I'm curious what your experience has been with any "temptations" to move into management, if you've had any?


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

Squirt said:


> This observation of yours is interesting to me because in my career, there was a lot of pressure to take on management roles in order to get a pay raise, where staying abreast of the field and showcasing technical skills or simply "putting in more hours" towards my skillset did not yield better job offers (to my chagrin, as I prefer technical roles).
> 
> I also got the sense that men in the field were viewed as more competent than women, regardless of their qualifications. Some studies back this up:
> 
> ...


Management. I used to get "advised" by friends and family that its better money. I basically told them if they were that bothered about me being a manager, maybe they should become a manager themselves or just shut the fuck up. At end of day I am not gonna live out someone elses career fantasies. Obviously I said it in more diplomatic terms and this built up over years of them not taking the hint. They have finally gotten the hint as I have spelt it out for them (in a more diplomatic way than above),

I have had a few jobs, where I have been "recommended" for management. But, being a manager, well there is nothing about management that interests me. Like, what does a manager actually do in laymans terms.

As far as techie jobs go, yeah they don't pay as well as management. But there is more demand for them and it is easier to develop those skills (in my opinion) and be able to get a new job if everything goes south, than just say you are a manager.

The one person I can think of in particular who is dead set on management, myself and several others think she is a great techie, but at end of day its her career,

Anyway, yeah, I am not interested in management.

I have done Team Lead before, which is leadership not so much management, but that was enough for me. Never again.

My normal response when I am told I could go management, is to ask what is wrong with my technical skills.

EDIT: In regard to the sexism, yes unfortunately I have witnessed that, when the woman I mentioned above was on 25% higher than some guy. The guy in question was totally useless (unfortunately, my replacement was the lucky sod who got to fire him, if I only I had waited a month before finding the new job). Unfortunately the useless guy, was very good friends with some other guy (who was also useless)(yes, I was team lead of a bunch of useless sods). But useless guy 2 kept complaining how she got paid more than this other guy. I got pretty sick of it, as I had worked with her several times and knew she was more than competent, he had never worked with her. Anyway, one day during lockdown I was sick of him complaining during a meeting that didn't involve her or the guy she was paid more than. So I just blunt out asked him why he was so against women in tech. Not sure if that stopped the discussions elsewhere, but he never mentioned it to me ever again. And as senior management were in the meeting, an investigation was carried out and useless guy was put on a PIP.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

beth x said:


> This is the type of roadblocking excuses that creates a glass ceiling for women in work environments. First off you say that men have wage gaps too (essentially saying there isn't one) and then you say the reasons why - women aren't worth it and it's unrealistic to expect that women can earn the same as men. All of this while not even quoting me.


I mean I literally told you that if this was the case, I'd be hiring all women, I'm basically openly saying that I'm willing to discriminately hire in women's favor coz the gap is a ridiculous opportunity to pass up and then you somehow come to the conclusion that "- women aren't worth it and it's unrealistic to expect that women can earn the same as men." It's clear your only agenda is looking at that website and watching the numbers go up, once it's up, you're happy and anyone who says anything that opposes it is obviously a misogynist even when it looks suss af.

Heres what would happen if I was CEO, I'd already have female employees in the company, I'd see these stats and think wtf, I can improve profits by 24.1% just by hiring all women? So I'll go fact check all these claims and stats from the website you linked. If it checks true, I'm immediately suspending all pay rises to men coz why the fk do they deserve 24.1% more if they had the same performance? Then all my new hirees will be based on the lower 24.1% salary coz women are apparently accepting of it.

Now that I've improved my company's profits by 24.1%, share holders will be happy, I'd get a huge pay out for a job well done in bonuses, stocks etc... and I'll move onto the next company and repeat the same thing.

Theres your reality.

Honestly, if you think that the majority of C.E.Os and men who run companies give a shit about the gender of their employees over a 24.1% wage difference, I must say that you're delusional or the stats you're reading is b.s. Never in my life have I seen a bunch of cut throat execs come together and decide, yeah we're gonna pay men in our company 24.1% more just coz they're men.

My decade in the corpo world, performance, leverage and reputation trumps gender and race.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

ENTJudgement said:


> I mean I literally told you that if this was the case, I'd be hiring all women, I'm basically openly saying that I'm willing to discriminately hire in women's favor coz the gap is a ridiculous opportunity to pass up and then you somehow come to the conclusion that "- women aren't worth it and it's unrealistic to expect that women can earn the same as men." It's clear your only agenda is looking at that website and watching the numbers go up, once it's up, you're happy and anyone who says anything that opposes it is obviously a misogynist even when it looks suss af.
> 
> Heres what would happen if I was CEO, I'd already have female employees in the company, I'd see these stats and think wtf, I can improve profits by 24.1% just by hiring all women? So I'll go fact check all these claims and stats from the website you linked. If it checks true, I'm immediately suspending all pay rises to men coz why the fk do they deserve 24.1% more if they had the same performance? Then all my new hirees will be based on the lower 24.1% salary coz women are apparently accepting of it.
> 
> ...


Rude. 




Nice gaslighting and doubling down.

I haven't mentioned CEOs or corporate businesses. That's you thinking you have the answers in one small area of employment. I am talking about all industries and roles. I didn't mention business, I mentioned nursing, mining, and teaching which are experiencing issues.

These numbers came from a govt website, where the govt itself has talked about the ways and means by which they are going to work towards getting towards a state where women are able to retire on super. You live here, have you not watched or read the news or the new govt policies aimed at this? It is more nuanced than saying the same job/same pay - that's illegal. It's where work is and how women are treated if they do enter a male-dominated workforce and how men have changed direction away from female dominated industries because they aren't getting enough pay. It's about policies like maternity leave, childcare, pay transparency, unequal domestic work etc...

The difference between us is that I am providing actual numbers instead of talking out of my arse by saying a problem doesn't exist, then saying the opposite but blaming the problem on the people experiencing issues.- and that companies aren't hiring because women don't perform as well in the same job. 

Don't call me delusional or make personal attacks again. I've managed to curb my distaste for you and talked about the topic, you can do the same.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Major government shake-up to address Australia's gender pay gap







www.9news.com.au


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

beth x said:


> I haven't mentioned CEOs or corporate businesses. That's you thinking you have the answers in one small area of employment. I am talking about all industries and roles. I didn't mention business, I mentioned nursing, mining, and teaching which are experiencing issues.
> 
> These numbers came from a govt website, where the govt itself has talked about the ways and means by which they are going to work towards getting towards a state where women are able to retire on super. You live here, have you not watched or read the news or the new govt policies aimed at this? It is more nuanced than saying the same job/same pay - that's illegal. It's where work is and how women are treated if they do enter a male-dominated workforce and how men have changed direction away from female dominated industries because they aren't getting enough pay. It's about policies like maternity leave, childcare, pay transparency, unequal domestic work etc...


It's precisely coz I live here that I'm saying the stats are likely false representing the truth, have you looked at the actual data being filed and the nuances on how they got each statistic or are you just looking at what the website is trying to advertise? Coz the site itself is going on about how one of the key contributing factors is coz women dominated industries are paying less but the way we're debating should NOT be taking into account all men vs all women regardless of industry, work exp, hours worked and performance and thus even if 80% of women end up in hospitality, nursing and teaching, they should ONLY be compared to men in the SAME area as they're in.

Furthermore, you've steered away from corporate business, why? 24.1% advertised on the website should in theory be across the board, not just female dominated industries right? If it's prevalent in female dominated industries only then mystery solved.

It's the whole WNBA all over again, if your industry is making less profit/money then how does it afford your higher salaries? If men are purposely flocking to higher paid jobs and willing to sacrifice w/e is needed to get that pay cheque based on the open market then thats probably why they're paid more but NOT paid more than their equally performing female co-worker of the same work exp, hours worked, time taken off, performance, etc... etc...

I did link you to an article that shows Google looked into the "wage gap" and found out it was men who were underpaid which you completely ignored.

Lastly, it's crap like this that I'm reading on your website that makes me roll my eyes, not trying to be rude but look at what it says;


*Gender pay gap data*
Currently, Australia’s national gender pay gap is *14.1 per cent.*
The national gender pay gap is calculated by WGEA using the latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).
As of May 2022, women’s average weekly ordinary full- time earnings across all industries and occupations was *$1,609.00* compared to men’s average weekly ordinary full- time earnings of *$1,872.90*. This means that on average, women earned *$263.90* less than men.





__





Gender pay gap data | WGEA







www.wgea.gov.au





"women’s average weekly ordinary full- time earnings across all industries and occupations was *$1,609.00* compared to men’s average weekly ordinary full- time earnings of *$1,872.90*. This means that on average, women earned *$263.90* less than men."

These kind of misleading advertisement is exactly why I can't take these "stats" seriously. Does not say at ALL they've ONLY compared men vs women's salaries in the SAME industry with the SAME work exp, SAME hours, SAME performance, SAME time taken off.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

ENTJudgement said:


> It's precisely coz I live here that I'm saying the stats are likely false representing the truth, have you looked at the actual data being filed and the nuances on how they got each statistic or are you just looking at what the website is trying to advertise? Coz the site itself is going on about how one of the key contributing factors is coz women dominated industries are paying less but the way we're debating should NOT be taking into account all men vs all women regardless of industry, work exp, hours worked and performance and thus even if 80% of women end up in hospitality, nursing and teaching, they should ONLY be compared to men in the SAME area as they're in.
> 
> Furthermore, you've steered away from corporate business, why? 24.1% advertised on the website should in theory be across the board, not just female dominated industries right? If it's prevalent in female dominated industries only then mystery solved.


I find corporate business to be really uninteresting. Never brought it up, never steered away from it. Just looked at the way you first said there really didn't seem to be a wage gap because you looked at Google for a bit, then crapped on some more about a subject you don't seem to know much about.

It's not solved as an issue because of a number of factors that I think you should study yourself instead of throwing yourself at people and accusing them of only being happy when numbers go up for a wage gap. I have daughters. I'm sure other people have daughters who they want to have super to retire on instead of trying to instill on them the importance of being married and looked after like I was told to do when I was young. It doesn't work out well for women who have families and go through divorce when it comes time to get the wages they need and to have enough to retire on.

I've looked at studies and the way that they use the data, yes. I've studied stats. If you are to look at the news article with Tony Burke talking about the wage gap you would understand that there are more things at play than men vs women in the same role. I've never really talked about that. I've been talking about the wage gap from the perspective of the way that society will push women into a situation where they are unable to work full-time because of childcare costs - and domestic responsibilities if they have families and pushed into roles in feminised work where the wages are kept low and they can only get child care for a limited time before they are paying half their wages if they were to get full time work.

Of course you have the narrow focus of male/female one job roles. I am looking at it from a sociological viewpoint where you look at the entirety of an experience - which is usually the reason why women end up not being able to retire on their super. They work in multiple areas which they aren't being paid for and of course we know that you don't really take that into account so there is probably a whole other world of men who don't think about these things too. Things are more nuanced in a world where you share responsibilities and you happen to be the female.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

beth x said:


> I find corporate business to be really uninteresting. Never brought it up, never steered away from it. Just looked at the way you first said there really didn't seem to be a wage gap because you looked at Google for a bit, then crapped on some more about a subject you don't seem to know much about.
> 
> It's not solved as an issue because of a number of factors that I think you should study yourself instead of throwing yourself at people and accusing them of only being happy when numbers go up for a wage gap. I have daughters. I'm sure other people have daughters who they want to have super to retire on instead of trying to instill on them the importance of being married and looked after like I was told to do when I was young. It doesn't work out well for women who have families and go through divorce when it comes time to get the wages they need and to have enough to retire on.
> 
> ...


Not who you are responding to.

Cannot comment on the overall picture.

But one thing that does irk me, is when working a job, which clearly states working evening and occasional weekends and suddenly childcare means someone cannot do their fair share and its "unfair" they should give up time with family and kids.

From my own experience, I have only experienced this with women in the workplace and yes it is anecdotal not probabilistic. 

However, having kids does not mean that your responsibilities can just get shoved onto other people and just because they do not have kids (at least in the UK, having kids is a choice), that they should be expected to give up more time than just their fair share of what their remit says.

Again, sure as hell not sure if this is a common thing. But I have come across it a few times. 

But a job that requires working 1 weekend a month is not a job that requires working 1 weekend a month unless you have kids. Same with out of hours work.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> Not who you are responding to.
> 
> Cannot comment on the overall picture.
> 
> ...


Here it means that if you are to find childcare places (which can be scarce) then if you are a primary carer then you have only a couple of days before it becomes prohibitive. Like your wages go completely on childcare with more than two days and you are better off only taking the two days. There have been new and improved childcare options given in the last year since the govt has realised the issues. You can't get the experience required to find better work and you can't work full time and it doesn't matter if you are partnered or not.

So in order to have the fertility years viable as a woman you need to sacrifice one for the other - to be able to get the career VERY early and find enough support in that industry to get through it otherwise you are on the treadmill. Women end up having geriatric pregnancies (which can be higher risk and with more chances of birthing issues) in order to be able to pay off a house and even then risk the treadmill again. You are lucky if you have advanced enough to get to the place where your career hasn't taken an arrow to the knee.

I get what you mean because you have to make up the extra time when there was a stipulation on the job. It's not really what I was talking about. It's more of the aim of the last govt to send us all back to the 50s and live our nuclear families while the man goes to work and the woman stays at home, but it's not realistic and it's not possible to buy a house on one wage here.


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> Not who you are responding to.
> 
> Cannot comment on the overall picture.
> 
> ...


This is why I would like to see more couples take shared maternity pay (not sure what it's called, having not been pregnant before). Women are still expected to take on the bulk of childcare so they have to take off Christmas, summer holidays, time off when their kids are sick etc. Right now we have a management position open but none of our senior staff are going for it because they're all women with care responsibilities (kids, grandkids, elderly parents) and management requires more responsibility, travel, less flexibility because you're expected to always be available. Those with caring responsibilities, typically women, have those barriers. Instead we end up getting men who work in management but no experience in our expertise, come into post, even if they have kids themselves, because they are able to dedicate their time to their career, even though our senior women with 10-20 year experience would be best for the job. It then has a knock on effect that those of us on the lower job roles dont have an opportunity to move into senior posts as women are stuck there for so long. We are a predominantly female organisation (charity) with a disproportionate amount of men in higher positions.

One of the managers in a different office took shared maternity leave. By that I mean, women get 52 weeks maternity leave here (although 13 weeks is unpaid, and half is half pay IIRC) however his wife took the first few months and he took the last few months. That way she was able to get back into work where she was quite high up and avoid losing opportunities, and he was able to bond with baby and not miss milestones. He advocates very heavily for joint childcare. As it stands its something shocking like men only get 1 or 2 weeks paid leave after the birth of their baby, then only something like a week per year parental leave!!! I feel like that's one place where we can bridge that gap.

As a childless person I feel you though. I've worked every Christmas to allow my colleagues to spend time with their children when I worked in care so there was no days off. I didnt begrudge them though, I was young and the agreement was always I would get New Year off so I could celebrate. That was fair. During the pandemic a lot of my colleagues with kids got furloughed which is absolutely fair as school was literally closed and childminders often cancelled their services. I didnt begrudge them because a lot of them are single mothers (with fathers who take no responsibility or pay no maintanence) and it's not really their fault. But I've heard of companies who only let parents take time off at summer which is complete discrimination tbh.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

beth x said:


> I find corporate business to be really uninteresting. Never brought it up, never steered away from it. Just looked at the way you first said there really didn't seem to be a wage gap because you looked at Google for a bit, then crapped on some more about a subject you don't seem to know much about.
> 
> It's not solved as an issue because of a number of factors that I think you should study yourself instead of throwing yourself at people and accusing them of only being happy when numbers go up for a wage gap. I have daughters. I'm sure other people have daughters who they want to have super to retire on instead of trying to instill on them the importance of being married and looked after like I was told to do when I was young. It doesn't work out well for women who have families and go through divorce when it comes time to get the wages they need and to have enough to retire on.
> 
> ...


Thank you, this is all I'm asking for, the willingness to be honest and the brains to see through some of the B.S advertising thats being shoved down people's throats. I'm just so sick of seeing this message;

"Women’s average weekly ordinary full- time earnings across all industries and occupations was *$1,609.00* compared to men’s average weekly ordinary full- time earnings of *$1,872.90*. This means that on average, women earned *$263.90* less than men."

And people thinking that just this means inequality for the reasons I've already explained above and using the WNBA + Women's soccer as examples coz it's so blatantly obvious and wide spread enough for everyone to know how it went.

I also appreciate you admitting you also don't think theres any noticeable wage gap in the corpo world which is my domain coz I was seeing the opposite happening which was barrier to entry for females were lower, they were not being paid a lower wage from what I can see even when their performance looks to be lower (as I said before, if you lower the barrier to entry, it's understandable why performance might be lower for the party getting in more easily, not saying women can't perform but I am saying stats will be skewed in favor of men in this instance coz they had a higher barrier to entry) my company at least is trying every way to get more females in to the point that even our news letters are basically straight up saying we want more FEMALES in tech.

Now with that out of the way, when we look at it from a socioeconomic point of view, the most obvious difference is women have kids and are more likely to want to put more focus on their children etc...

1. Why is it society's responsibility for your kid? Or why should your salary be adjusted when you're having a child and not profiting the company? Aren't your coworkers picking up your slack? Your children are yours, you sacrifice to bring them up coz you want them, why should there be compensation or amends for it? I ask this coz there are SOME women that pop out like 8+ kids then try make them other people's problem as much as possible while others who are more sensible might opt to have 1 or max 2 kids and those are aren't doing well or didn't find the right spouse end up having 0 yet are still forced to in some way help contribute to people with an abundance of kids, I don't see how this is fair, your kid has nothing to do with other people.

2. Isn't child care a female dominated industry? So wouldn't increasing their salaries mean costing you more for child care? Isn't having 0 children the equivalent of $0 childcare costs? So I don't understand why you deciding to have a kid with your husband mean it's a societal problem, if you can't afford it, don't have kids? Or marry a house husband who will take care of the kids while you go to work? It just looks to me like you want to have kids, you want it to be a easy process and cost you less but who is gonna take the financial hit for that? How do you lower childcare costs? Wouldn't it have to either be subsidized by the govt meaning more tax from tax payers meaning those who have no kids have to fork out even more money ontop of the amount they're forced to pay to people on welfare and prisoners? At some point, aren't people who have no kids gonna get annoyed at people with like 8 kids living off subsidies etc...? Or subsidized by your company which is asking for discrimination against women coz why would people wanna hire you if you're gonna be profiting the company less due to being away for extended periods of time? Wouldn't you have to provide additional value to make up for that loss??

3. Domestic responsibilities is basically 50/50 if you're both working similar hours, thats a private matter and has nothing to do with this coz you pick your husband so pick one that does half the domestic responsibilities if you want him to do half or more of the domestic responsibilities... Like what do you want society to do? Educate men to do half the domestic chores so you have an easier time finding a husband that does half or something?

4. What if women can't retire on their super coz they simply chose a career path that provided less compensation coz they "followed their passion" rather than picking what pays, had kids and took time off rather than sacrificing family for career advancements which a lot of men do and didn't focus on her career as much? Is that a possibility?

I'm not saying whats right or wrong, I AM saying that you can't have your cake and eat it too coz someone has to take the financial hit for your benefits so you having kids, your responsibility? Your employer's or tax payers? You pick.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

ENTJudgement said:


> Thank you, this is all I'm asking for, the willingness to be honest and the brains to see through some of the B.S advertising thats being shoved down people's throats. I'm just so sick of seeing this message;
> 
> "Women’s average weekly ordinary full- time earnings across all industries and occupations was *$1,609.00* compared to men’s average weekly ordinary full- time earnings of *$1,872.90*. This means that on average, women earned *$263.90* less than men."
> 
> ...


You know what? I'm tired of talking to you. You're rude, and kinda in a conversation to win rather than to understand and it's kinda bullshit.

I didn't admit anything about the corporation world because I was't talking about it. I as talking about how you try to cut through bullshit and in doing so miss the point and become the bullshit.

I was talking from a sociological viewpoint. Not socioeconomic.

You fuck it, just go away. My IQ drops a fews points each time I have to reply to you.

EDIT to add: 

If you actually wanted to learn about the reasons why the stats are the way they are you can listen to the news, or even go to the govt web page where it outlines specifics on why the gap is there and how there are ways we can address it. ON THE SAME WEBSITE you keep quoting. Learn something instead of inflicting your ignorance on other people.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

JennyJukes said:


> This is why I would like to see more couples take shared maternity pay (not sure what it's called, having not been pregnant before). Women are still expected to take on the bulk of childcare so they have to take off Christmas, summer holidays, time off when their kids are sick etc. Right now we have a management position open but none of our senior staff are going for it because they're all women with care responsibilities (kids, grandkids, elderly parents) and management requires more responsibility, travel, less flexibility because you're expected to always be available. Those with caring responsibilities, typically women, have those barriers. Instead we end up getting men who work in management but no experience in our expertise, come into post, even if they have kids themselves, because they are able to dedicate their time to their career, even though our senior women with 10-20 year experience would be best for the job. It then has a knock on effect that those of us on the lower job roles dont have an opportunity to move into senior posts as women are stuck there for so long. We are a predominantly female organisation (charity) with a disproportionate amount of men in higher positions.


I have seen this happen, one of my first jobs when I left the army. Unfortunately and this where my real bugbear is (not the people having kids), the company didn't do anything about covering him, ie hire a contractor for 2 months. So I was just expected to do double the workload for the 2 months he was off, on what was a 2 man team. The only funny bit was when I rage quit, he was still on leave when my notice period was completed. I heard it caused a few issues. 




> One of the managers in a different office took shared maternity leave. By that I mean, women get 52 weeks maternity leave here (although 13 weeks is unpaid, and half is half pay IIRC) however his wife took the first few months and he took the last few months. That way she was able to get back into work where she was quite high up and avoid losing opportunities, and he was able to bond with baby and not miss milestones. He advocates very heavily for joint childcare. As it stands its something shocking like men only get 1 or 2 weeks paid leave after the birth of their baby, then only something like a week per year parental leave!!! I feel like that's one place where we can bridge that gap.


Like I mentioned above, this is a company issue and I would say it is where the problem lies. However, I also know that my previous comment about hiring a contractor is not always financially feasible. And I also know that temp jobs whilst someone is on maternity/paternity leave don't appeal to everyone. I have interviewed for a position before with the premise of "you will do this role whilst so and so is on maternity leave, then we will see if there is a full time position avaliable" (this wasn't specified in the job spec), so I just noped it, it seemed too much of a gamble.



> As a childless person I feel you though. I've worked every Christmas to allow my colleagues to spend time with their children when I worked in care so there was no days off. I didnt begrudge them though, I was young and the agreement was always I would get New Year off so I could celebrate. That was fair. During the pandemic a lot of my colleagues with kids got furloughed which is absolutely fair as school was literally closed and childminders often cancelled their services. I didnt begrudge them because a lot of them are single mothers (with fathers who take no responsibility or pay no maintanence) and it's not really their fault. But I've heard of companies who only let parents take time off at summer which is complete discrimination tbh.


Oh I have done the whole swap holidays. Christmas to me, is no big deal, I spent long enough in the army that having to work Christmas is just meh. But if its doing favors, I do like them to be reciprocated and I have learnt the hard way, to get it all authorized officially and have the rota amended straight the way for both when I am covering and when I am now being covered. It just when its an expectation for me to drop everything for someone else for a lifestyle they chose. Like I say, it irks me. I am quite by the book when it comes to leave processes, I will always put in my leave at least a month before and I will say no to friends/family if they ask me about doing something last minute, if there is less than a month to go and I have work commitments, I have turned down a wedding invite before due to this. It is what it is.

As far as the discrimination thing you mentioned, yeah that sort of stuff would leave me to handing in my notice. I try to suss out as much as possible about a company during an interview. If my leave is turned down because someone has already booked those dates off, fair play. However, if they keep booking the same dates off each year or I get told something like "You do not have kids", then it is check the job market, polish up my CV, speak to contacts if they have any vacancies going, then have an enjoyable ragequit at the most inconvenient time (for the company) possible. You may think this is immature, I think it is amusing.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

beth x said:


> I get what you mean because you have to make up the extra time when there was a stipulation on the job. It's not really what I was talking about. It's more of the aim of the last govt to send us all back to the 50s and live our nuclear families while the man goes to work and the woman stays at home, but it's not realistic and it's not possible to buy a house on one wage here.


Fair, I wasn't sure so wanted to make that clear. I've just had it happen a few times.


----------



## JennyJukes (Jun 29, 2012)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> I have seen this happen, one of my first jobs when I left the army. Unfortunately and this where my real bugbear is (not the people having kids), the company didn't do anything about covering him, ie hire a contractor for 2 months. So I was just expected to do double the workload for the 2 months he was off, on what was a 2 man team. The only funny bit was when I rage quit, he was still on leave when my notice period was completed. I heard it caused a few issues.
> 
> Quote]Like I mentioned above, this is a company issue and I would say it is where the problem lies. However, I also know that my previous comment about hiring a contractor is not always financially feasible. And I also know that temp jobs whilst someone is on maternity/paternity leave don't appeal to everyone. I have interviewed for a position before with the premise of "you will do this role whilst so and so is on maternity leave, then we will see if there is a full time position avaliable" (this wasn't specified in the job spec), so I just noped it, it seemed too much of a gamble.


Ah ok, I wasn't working at the company at the time so not sure how it affected his colleagues, just heard him rave about how great it was for him and his wife. Majority of the time when people go on maternity here, the woman goes for a year so someone is always taken in to replace. We're the "experts" in our field though so it takes a good year+ to really learn the job. We pay well though so even if it's just maternity cover people want the job, and theres usually an opportunity for another job when the one on maternity comes back. So I work at a pretty progressive company that gets that. Couldnt imagine it when I worked in actual care. Cause i was the only one without kids I was being asked to cover sleepover shifts (only £39 per night, sometimes getting up 2 or more times a night for personal care and then I'd do a full shift in the morning) and my rota they gave me 1 weekend off in 6 weeks when everyone else got 2!! When I gave my notice they didnt talk to me the whole time because they were annoyed lol. 

I do wish companies would allow flexible working practices for men and women but particularly in terms of childcare. If we want men and woman to equally carry out the childcare labour then men should have an incentive to do so e.g. having paid time off to actually do it. Seems like a win-win : women dont jeopardize their career too much, and men get to take time off work and be involved as a parent. Mum also gets adult stimulation, feels like more than just "mum", dad can have less pressure about earning and keeping food on the table. I'd imagine that would do wonders for their relationship too. But it's not really the done thing so cant say how it would work in practice. And until it's common I think there will be the issues of companies doing as you experienced, as society still expects women to go on maternity and men to work. 




> If my leave is turned down because someone has already booked those dates off, fair play. However, if they keep booking the same dates off each year or I get told something like "You do not have kids", then it is check the job market, polish up my CV, speak to contacts if they have any vacancies going, then have an enjoyable ragequit at the most inconvenient time (for the company) possible. You may think this is immature, I think it is amusing.


Your work life takes up a lot of time so you should choose carefully. Do what's good for you. As I say I'm lucky that I work in a progressive organization. My colleagues all do their bit for each other. I guess that's what happens when you get paid well, get enough time off and enough flexibility 🤷‍♀️


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

beth x said:


> You know what? I'm tired of talking to you. You're rude, and kinda in a conversation to win rather than to understand and it's kinda bullshit.
> 
> I didn't admit anything about the corporation world because I was't talking about it. I as talking about how you try to cut through bullshit and in doing so miss the point and become the bullshit.
> 
> ...


Aite, laters bo


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Dezir said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I remember that once I had this belief that "women don't like men who show emotions", "women don't like men who cry, you have to be stoic, otherwise you're a wuss". Until I did. And the women were even more supportive of men and became closer to them for showing emotions.
> 
> ...


Hey man I don't like blood, at least I won't have to watch gory movies with you if you were my friend!


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

laluna said:


> View attachment 911638
> 
> 
> Skinny, short men at like 5'4" to 5'7" are HOT AF. Make em blonde with a bad attitude and I'm DEAD. 👀🙏🥰





Necrofantasia said:


> I've actually found I get along best with dudes that have at least a female sibling. Dudebros are just weirdly insecure by their ignorance and act like tools to mask this. Any kind of male oriented work environment exhibits this towards whatever women they try to mix in.
> Essentially dudes that see femininity as a threat are a bit like stunted kids in conversation and day to day interaction.
> 
> I also find I get along much more easily with working class women that have at least one male influence in their lives. Ultra femmes tend to be in a different world conversationally.


This. I don't like overly bro bro douche guys, or overly elegant ladies who will judge you by not using your fork the right way. Not that there's anything wrong with elegance. I'd like to be more elegant, but not to the point where it's "Keeping up with Jonses'' kind of crap.

I'd rather live in a trailer trash place where I know people are genuine rather than tinsel town walking on eggshells because everyone's trying to impress everybody.

Anyway that's off topic...

The key word is balance. Yeeeeap.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Okay, gender gap. Any discussion about men & women eventually falls into this. It's like talking history and eventually you're going to mention Hitler at some point.

Let's grab the popcorn and see what this is about











ENTJudgement said:


> A feminine woman who is genuinely nice and caring COULD end up safer coz men would find her pleasant and either defend her or not want to attack her while a "masculine" woman who is physically weaker (generally speaking) instigating/talking shit/provoking, being annoying/irritating etc... could get knocked out or "fked up" by men coz if a physically weaker man was to do that, he'd be sent to the hospital and "masculine women" is often seen as a teenage boy.


This ^ come on, men are using glvoes with women. Exactly because they are women. This is true both in physical fights and business department. The women may be unaware of this (those who have privilege, it's invisible to them) but all men treat women different than men simply because they are women, better, more nicely.

Now, if a woman rises up to be "the man", "the alpha" the insert adjective here. At some point a man is going to be like "gloves off" and knock her out, either physically or metaphorically in the business enviroment.

Again, not making black & white case but generalizations.

Being disarming in order to avoid physical harm is a better strategy than being intimidating for women. According to a psychologist (no, not Jordan Peterson, but I wouldn't doubt if he made a more similar case) women are more manipulative by their nature. More in-tune with social roles and social dynamics than men. Because men learned to rely on strength, women learned to rely on connections. As said originally, we play different games.

It's a good point that, IF women were MORE competent than men ON AVERAGE across the board, at all careers, people would likely change their perception to assume the opposite i.e take women more seriously, it's the same shit as why the jury/courts usually favor women when theres an accusation made on a man and during divorce court, women are just assumed and seen as the better parent or more likely the victim just coz of her gender and how she appears.

WAGE GAP, WAGE GAP, WAGE GAP. If you have a company, why not hire 100% women? Do you think companies care about social stuff? they care about money, only money.


Squirt said:


> @Lonewaer Safety can mean a lot of things. As in, “a safe bet.” It does not have to be literal physical safety. That thinking is so primitive, especially when I already clarified the sense I was using the word. It isn’t that hard.
> 
> Anyway, you sound deeply entrenched in a sexist view with strict gender roles. It is not surprising that you cannot fathom what it means to be disarming, or understand women’s relationship with violence compared to men.


Playing the feminist card? how original. A lot of people don't buy into that crap.



Lonewaer said:


> Insults and shaming language, nice. You guys never fail to resort to this do you ? That's pure toxic femininity by the way, how on-topic. Thank you for demonstrating what that looks like. Using words to get someone to assault you/misstep so you can then play the victim card. Another manifestation of it is the amount of support, including by an admin, for a post that's overtly insulting, simply because I didn't paint women in a good light, and even though what I said is objectively verifiable.
> 
> That's the main reason why some women get beaten up by their boyfriend/husband, just so you know, a direct consequence of not understanding the ins and outs of violence. So you can scream "sexism" left and right if you want, it doesn't disprove the truth of it.


I mean fair point here. I wouldn't go into that much extreme that this is either a reason or justification for beating (whenever there's domestic abuse I never take the side that "they deserved it"), but the general concept is right.

Insults aside, I see no proper disagreement of this post:


Lonewaer said:


> "Safer" refers to physical altercations. If you're talking about reputation, you're safe on your own. In fact I would say women are the reputation protectors, because they're also the ones most likely to try (and succeed) to destroy reputations. You protect our reputations and we protect your physical safety.
> Same for "being taken seriously", we don't really care about that because we already have to do that for ourselves. You guys wanted to enter the workforce, according to some of you, so you're going to go through the same obstacles as us in regards to being taken seriously. The problem is that yes, being taken seriously requires a bunch of character traits that are widely deemed as being masculine, and so you're at a disadvantage. But we (except some dudes who thought it's better for the economy) didn't ask you, nor fought for the right for you to enter the workforce, you did. Believe it or not, the way society was functioning 100 years ago was working out very well for everyone.
> 
> So when talking about safety, the question is not "reputation" or "being taken seriously". The question is physical altercation. You want protection ? That's where it's going to happen, if it has to. Fist fights. Regarding your question at the end, I'm not sure what you mean by disarming. I would simply say that women don't seem to understand what "intimidating" means, and combined by the absolute inability to understand violence, confuse being "intimidating" with something else. There is so much more to being intimidating than just being loud, boasty, ratchet, stuff like that.
> ...


It's more like a whine "you bad because you believe this. But I can't prove you wrong tho".



OrchidSugar said:


> Some women: We would like the opportunity to earn wages for our labor and spend those wages as we see fit. We would also like to have access to job opportunities that are not physically-taxing.
> 
> Some men: And we took that personally.
> 
> ...


Yep, this is the best argument you can make against the 1910s and 1940s era. ^

Like "people had more class back then", "yeah, and your car had more rights than your woman back then, not to mention race discrimination was still a big thing".

Sure, it looked shiny on the surface. But inside, it was rotten.

This is a parody but I can see the "some men" points in this case: Not in the exact case of "you want equal job we beat you" (lol) but in the underlying theme that feminists want equality, but only positive equality, not true equality. You have rights & responsabilities. Feminists only want the rights but would rather keep their privilege when it comes to responsabilities.

How many feminists are there complaining that the majority of coal miners and woodcutters are men? 0%. They only complain that the CEOs are men, the creme of the creme.
How many feminists are there complaining that in a divorce the jury automatically sides with the woman unless proven otherwise? 0%.

Feminists want to be equal with only the top 20% of men and screw the rest 80% of men we don't want to be like them or equal to them. That's the issue most people have with feminism. It's not true equality.

It's like me going to Switzerland and being like "oh, better living standards here, I want to live here and become a citizen, but I don't want to go to the army every few months like the Swiss law requres". I only want the benefits, don't care about the rest.

Today's feminists issues are 95% social issues rather than legal issues. What rights do they have that men don't? It's mostly about perception in places where they are disadvantaged. With no regards about perception in places where they are advantaged. This is why the movement is seen wholly as toxic despite there being some good apples in there.



Necrofantasia said:


> Unless it becomes profitable or useful it'll be feminine.
> 
> View attachment 911787
> 
> ...


Yep, this is BS. Heck, you can even narrow it down to toys & video games.

When video games first came out, women were the dominant players. Imagine video games played mostly by women.

Then, when video games became profitable they were listed as "toys for boys", which is when the female playerbase dropped. "Because it's not for women".

Really a simple thing but goes to show a broader picture.

This is a legitimate cause.



ENTJudgement said:


> Hold up, the wage gap is based on stats from the average of ALL working men and women, it does not take into account the type of job, position, experience, hours worked, competence or anything hence why people dismiss it.
> 
> Heres an article showing what happened when Google tried to rectify the gender "wage gap".
> 
> ...


Yep, lol.

Knew about that. Imagine being so biased that in THE STUDY that made gender gap popular you intentionally don't take into account the type of job, position, experience, hours worked, competence or anything. You don't compare female doctors to male doctors. You compare all women on all jobs, with all men or all jobs. If there are on average more women teachers than male doctors, that's going to schew the balance in favor of men because being a doctor is way better paid than being a teacher.

This is what toxic femininity looks like.

There is still a gap of like 4-5% when you factor it properly, but noting like the "77 cents" myth this false study started.


ENTJudgement said:


> If a large enterprise made even 3-6% profit over the previous year, thats regarded as a job well done, if women who are equally competent as their male counterparts working in the same job, same hours, same position, same experience, same outcome, and the stats that you're linking is actually true i.e 14.3 percent and 24.1 differential between the genders, every employer would only hire women.
> 
> They're willing to outsource work to other countries, everyone who picks up the phone when you ring tech support seems to be Indian working from India etc... You think they wouldn't hire all women for a 14.3 percent and 24.1 bump in profits? I mean theres only so much you can read before you realize how unrealistic it is.
> 
> ...





beth x said:


> This is the type of roadblocking excuses that creates a glass ceiling for women in work environments. First off you say that men have wage gaps too (essentially saying there isn't one) and then you say the reasons why - women aren't worth it and it's unrealistic to expect that women can earn the same as men. All of this while not even quoting me.


I'm not certain that's how it works. There IS A WAGE GAP BETWEEN MEN. It exists. Not all men are paid the same for the same position. This is a fact. It's not a value-oriented judgement it's just a fact, something that happens. It's not a roadblocking excuse, it's simply reality. If there is snow on the road that's not a roadblocking excuses (pun intended) for you to go in vacation, it's simply reality.

I don't think he makes the case that women aren't worth it. But he makes a very good case that if women were paid less, all companies would hire women, would be way more economically efficient for them. So why doesn't this happen?

Because of discrimination? please, companies don't care about social issues, they only care about money. If they could legally make money by selling organs they would do it.

Yeah, WNBA and such are the exact opposite of equality. They are losing money with WNBA. Where do they gain money to pay all those losing-money sports? NBA. WNBA only exist so they can trademark EQUALITY TM, NBA exists because it makes money. This may be offensive, but it's just what happens.

I have yet to see an argument why this isn't the case, other that it's a "rude" or "offensive" fact.

But at the end of the day I think all this "gender gap war" is just a dumb war, why not make all salaries public by law and be done with it?

Because companies would hate that. They're rather have women and men fighting for scrap than tackle the real issue.

Imagine a law is passed an all salaries are public. Joe, Bill, Nea and Jade all have the same job.
Joe - 10.000$
Bill - 9.000$
Nea - 8.000$
Jade - 7.000$ (numbers are just made up for representation of difference)

Wouldn't everbody lose their mind and demand a fair salary from the companies? yes, they would.

As long as salaries are private & there is a taboo about not saying your salary (because it's "rude"), companies will always rule both men and women.

And there will always be a pay gap, both between men and men, and between men and women, for the same reason.

Trying to fix the wage gap artificially while the salaries are private is like trying to fix a boat with a hole in it by taking a bucket to get rid of the water inside the boat. It will always be unstable, you cannot have 0% pay gap as long as everybody doesn't know everybody else's salaries.


----------



## Gamine (5 mo ago)

I have not had my shots. Am I feral?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Dezir said:


> Okay, gender gap. Any discussion about men & women eventually falls into this. It's like talking history and eventually you're going to mention Hitler at some point.
> 
> Let's grab the popcorn and see what this is about
> 
> ...


The gender gap is actually a thing. A govt website trying to address it and the employment minister addressing it by bringing in reforms to workplaces by addressing childcare, an end to wage secrecy, multi-party wage agreements and bringing in more workplace laws to address gendered harassment kind of clinches its existence wouldn't you think?

If I refuse to be addressed as "delusional" then it's just boundary setting and not up to you to champion. You can get in your own lane, frankly.

Since we have access to the same stats which were addressed by our govt in parliament over the last 6 months I'm not going to argue with someone whether the wage gap exists. Since you have access to all the information by hitting the back button I'm not playing catch up with you either. It's not my job to do your thinking for you.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

beth x said:


> The gender gap is actually a thing. A govt website trying to address it and the employment minister addressing it by bringing in reforms to workplaces by addressing childcare, an end to wage secrecy, multi-party wage agreements and bringing in more workplace laws to address gendered harassment kind of clinches its existence wouldn't you think?
> 
> If I refuse to be addressed as "delusional" then it's just boundary setting and not up to you to champion. You can get in your own lane, frankly.
> 
> Since we have access to the same stats which were addressed by our govt in parliament over the last 6 months I'm not going to argue with someone whether the wage gap exists. Since you have access to all the information by hitting the back button I'm not playing catch up with you either. It's not my job to do your thinking for you.


I never called you delusional.

I think it's just making more noise because people want more noise to be made there. People want to feel like they are doing something about it, even though they didn't. Ending wage secrecy, by having all companies legally obligated to display all salaries of their employees would end the wage gap overnight. But that won't happen because they don't profit from it.

It's like you're having 2 tanks of water but you can't see how much water is in each tank, you can only make a vague estimation at best. Sometimes water is substracted randomly, sometimes water is added randomly. Good luck trying to balance these out.

I still don't understand why all companies would not hire women only if they are paid less?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Dezir said:


> I never called you delusional.
> 
> I think it's just making more noise because people want more noise to be made there. People want to feel like they are doing something about it, even though they didn't. Ending wage secrecy, by having all companies legally obligated to display all salaries of their employees would end the wage gap overnight. But that won't happen because they don't profit from it.
> 
> ...


No you didn't call me delusional. Although iirc you have in the past but that's by the by. You are championing someone I called rude for calling me delusional rather than actually talking about the topic so by proxy you are continuing a personal attack and not fecking understanding what wage gap is in exactly the same way. I forgive you for that. For the record though, I'm just over the tag team where someone quotes me, misunderstands what is being said and talks to me in such terms which ends up me having to drop kick them away from me to save my own sanity - then another picks up the baton and says the same stuff. (which is you).

Go read about the wage gap. It's not a war against sexes like you seem to think it is. It's not equal pay for equal work although that might be an aspect of it. A small aspect. It's like you are saying "Beth I don't understand sociology" without actually saying it. Go read the stats, in the last few pages and read the links and how the wage gap occurs, then talk to me but don't bullshit me by saying you understand the complexities.


----------



## ENTJudgement (Oct 6, 2013)

Dezir said:


> Okay, gender gap. Any discussion about men & women eventually falls into this. It's like talking history and eventually you're going to mention Hitler at some point.
> 
> Let's grab the popcorn and see what this is about
> 
> ...


I've actually been pretty soft on her considering she said "I was talking from a sociological viewpoint. Not socioeconomic." But fails to acknowledge that suicide rates is so astronomically higher for men than women that it makes the "gender wage gap" claim look like a null issue. I always figured she only cares about women's issues so I didn't bother bringing up men's issues but hell, if half the men died from their careers and suicide, she'd probably still be focused on women's sociological development and how its not up to her standard. 

Obviously "4. What if women can't retire on their super coz they simply chose a career path that provided less compensation coz they "followed their passion" rather than picking what pays, had kids and took time off rather than sacrificing family for career advancements which a lot of men do and didn't focus on her career as much? Is that a possibility?" Is an unacceptable comment. As if men who did this for more financial gain didn't deserve it and need the govt to forcefully adjust the compensation so they end up the same, in other words, wtf did the guy that sacrificed everything for his career get then?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

ENTJudgement said:


> I've actually been pretty soft on her considering she said "I was talking from a sociological viewpoint. Not socioeconomic." But fails to acknowledge that suicide rates is so astronomically higher for men than women that it makes the "gender wage gap" claim look like a null issue. I always figured she only cares about women's issues so I didn't bother bringing up men's issues but hell, if half the men died from their careers and suicide, she'd probably still be focused on women's sociological development and how its not up to her standard.
> 
> Obviously "4. What if women can't retire on their super coz they simply chose a career path that provided less compensation coz they "followed their passion" rather than picking what pays, had kids and took time off rather than sacrificing family for career advancements which a lot of men do and didn't focus on her career as much? Is that a possibility?" Is an unacceptable comment. As if men who did this for more financial gain didn't deserve it and need the govt to forcefully adjust the compensation so they end up the same, in other words, wtf did the guy that sacrificed everything for his career get then?


Since this is a thread about feminism and having a feral stage it seems pretty ridiculous to bring up male suicide. It is a topic for another thread. Women tend to attempt it more, and men complete it at a greater rate. Women tend to seek help. There is your answer for that - not that hard- took two minutes during a lesson in behavioural psych to understand this and now you can too. 

This is not the pity olympics nor do I think it's appropriate to say you took it easy on me. It would get you banned making personal attacks towards staff. I get you don't like me and I find you to be representitive of some weird old school dressed up in a new suit and you make personal snide attacks rather than address the topic.

If you aren't capable of learning about the issues that were talked about then you don't deserve to mouth off about it. Simple.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

Necrofantasia said:


> Unless it becomes profitable or useful it'll be feminine.
> 
> View attachment 911787
> 
> ...


People seriously doubt she did the code because she's a woman? How sad.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

beth x said:


> Some people are concerned about the wage gap. Our govt was voted in on the election promise that "nobody gets left behind" meaning that they would act on the increasing wage gap, they would give marginalised people a fair go, that women should feel safe in their workplace and that First Nation people got a voice to parliament. We still have people voting (which is compulsory) for their interests and are demanding the specific promises to be filled by the govt. Women vote here, they should be represented, shouldn't they?
> 
> We have free places for people going into nursing degrees and teaching degrees atm. They should get higher wages. They are holding the future after all, and higher wages would also be an inducement for more teachers. People are dropping out of teaching because there are too few in that sector now, they are overworked with a ratio of students to teachers too high to sustain. Raising the overall rate would also incentivise men to that sector.
> 
> ...


I was going to work in the mines but my dad advised against it because it's too rough and too many men, etc.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Dezir said:


> This ^ come on, men are using glvoes with women. Exactly because they are women. This is true both in physical fights and business department. The women may be unaware of this (those who have privilege, it's invisible to them) but all men treat women different than men simply because they are women, better, more nicely.


Do you think you can make an accurate assessment of how someone wants to be treated?

Men want to be treated like:
Women want to be treated like:

The lists are going to be wrong because everyone is different and people don't actually fall on this binary all the time in their identification of self and others, but it would be an interesting exercise. I think you'd see some commonalities, like "fairly and with respect."



Dezir said:


> Now, if a woman rises up to be "the man", "the alpha" the insert adjective here. At some point a man is going to be like "gloves off" and knock her out, either physically or metaphorically in the business enviroment.
> 
> Again, not making black & white case but generalizations.


In general, the only feasible quality that a typical man might arguably have biologically over a typical woman in the workforce is physical strength, not business acumen or similar. I'm not sure how being "unfairly" nice to women in that environment is an advantage. Here is where specifics would be helpful. Like, if a woman is making a mistake and a man is being "too nice" to tell her, that isn't helping her. If by nice, you just mean courteous to her as an acquaintance, then I don't think the world would be worse off if men were courteous to each other that way, too.



Dezir said:


> Being disarming in order to avoid physical harm is a better strategy than being intimidating for women. According to a psychologist (no, not Jordan Peterson, but I wouldn't doubt if he made a more similar case) women are more manipulative by their nature. More in-tune with social roles and social dynamics than men. Because men learned to rely on strength, women learned to rely on connections. As said originally, we play different games.


Why is a very negative word like "manipulative" used to describe the _nature _of women? What does that framing do to your assumptions about other people?

How is using force and intimidation to get what you want _not _manipulative?



Dezir said:


> It's a good point that, IF women were MORE competent than men ON AVERAGE across the board, at all careers, people would likely change their perception to assume the opposite i.e take women more seriously, it's the same shit as why the jury/courts usually favor women when theres an accusation made on a man and during divorce court, women are just assumed and seen as the better parent or more likely the victim just coz of her gender and how she appears.


You'll admit that there is a bias in court. That it doesn't just magically come out fair to all parties. So why do you insist there is not one in the workforce?

I'm not sure who said women are _more competent in all careers_. Why would they need to be _better _to earn the same pay?



Dezir said:


> WAGE GAP, WAGE GAP, WAGE GAP. If you have a company, why not hire 100% women? Do you think companies care about social stuff? they care about money, only money.


Right, so if they _can get away with_ paying someone less, they will. If they _can't _get away with it, what is the difference? There are a lot of causes behind the wage gap between men and women, and between "classes" of workers, and they are all occurring simultaneously.



Dezir said:


> I wouldn't go into that much extreme that this is either a reason or justification for beating (whenever there's domestic abuse I never take the side that "they deserved it")


I'm glad you see that as problematic.



Dezir said:


> It's more like a whine "you bad because you believe this. But I can't prove you wrong tho".


I'm pretty stumped on what you want for proof, and what assertions you want proof for. That a wage gap exists between men and women on the basis of sexism? Studies and figures from diverse sources in the last 30 years don't seem to move you on that, so I'm not sure what to provide.



Dezir said:


> This is a parody but I can see the "some men" points in this case: Not in the exact case of "you want equal job we beat you" (lol) but in the underlying theme that feminists want equality, but only positive equality, not true equality. You have rights & responsabilities. Feminists only want the rights but would rather keep their privilege when it comes to responsabilities.


I've observed this happening sometimes, and I don't agree with that mindset. You see the tendency to push off responsibility onto someone else in many aspects of culture and how we organize society. I don't think it is just feminists who might adopt that attitude, but because they are also a part of wider society, those attitudes show up there, as well. There is too much infrastructure that goes towards absolving individuals of responsibility and handing it over to an authority structure to make everyone feel comfortable.

That is as big topic for another day, lol.



Dezir said:


> How many feminists are there complaining that the majority of coal miners and woodcutters are men? 0%. They only complain that the CEOs are men, the creme of the creme.
> How many feminists are there complaining that in a divorce the jury automatically sides with the woman unless proven otherwise? 0%.


I take issue with that. I take issue with any jobs that severely degrade someone's quality of life, too.



Dezir said:


> Feminists want to be equal with only the top 20% of men and screw the rest 80% of men we don't want to be like them or equal to them. That's the issue most people have with feminism. It's not true equality.





Dezir said:


> Knew about that. Imagine being so biased that in THE STUDY that made gender gap popular you intentionally don't take into account the type of job, position, experience, hours worked, competence or anything. You don't compare female doctors to male doctors. You compare all women on all jobs, with all men or all jobs. If there are on average more women teachers than male doctors, that's going to schew the balance in favor of men because being a doctor is way better paid than being a teacher.


I find myself not wanting to use the word equality in a general sense. When people start taking words like "equality" as abstract slogans and turn them into nebulous values it starts getting dicey. It can be useful for a specific initiative, like a man and woman with _equal _qualifications deserve to be offered an _equal _pay, at least in an organization that states it practices non-discrimination on the basis of sex. If you missed it earlier, I cited an article that mentioned a study where exact resumes were given to potential employers with only the sex of the applicant changed, and female names were consistently offered a lower salary. So, all other factors controlled for, sex did have an impact.




Dezir said:


> Today's feminists issues are 95% social issues rather than legal issues. What rights do they have that men don't? It's mostly about perception in places where they are disadvantaged. With no regards about perception in places where they are advantaged. This is why the movement is seen wholly as toxic despite there being some good apples in there.


A trap people fall into is thinking that if you change a law, suddenly the problem it was meant to address goes away. I don't think I've ever seen one example of this being the case. It is one step for a long-term shift in cultural practices.



Dezir said:


> I'm not certain that's how it works. There IS A WAGE GAP BETWEEN MEN. It exists. Not all men are paid the same for the same position. This is a fact. It's not a value-oriented judgement it's just a fact, something that happens. It's not a roadblocking excuse, it's simply reality. If there is snow on the road that's not a roadblocking excuses (pun intended) for you to go in vacation, it's simply reality.


That is why averages are used, and other control factors, in studies.



Dezir said:


> I don't think he makes the case that women aren't worth it. But he makes a very good case that if women were paid less, all companies would hire women, would be way more economically efficient for them. So why doesn't this happen?


It does for some jobs, especially if there is a perception that women are more "appealing" in those roles, like work with a lot of emotional labor. I've been places where the staff in the lowest paid positions were all women, and the staff in the higher paid positions (executives, directors, etc.) were all men. More than once.

And just for some perspective on these biases in action, when I was on an interview panel for a low-paid administrative assistant position, there were two qualified applicants. One was a man, and one was a woman. In our discussions about who to hire, the female supervisor said that she wanted to hire the woman because, "a man would see this work as beneath him." Joke was on her, the woman we hired felt that way, lol.



Dezir said:


> They're rather have women and men fighting for scrap than tackle the real issue.


I agree that sex is not the only factor affecting wage disparities and unfair treatment of workers.



Dezir said:


> And there will always be a pay gap, both between men and men, and between men and women, for the same reason.


Yet, I think many of these discussions wouldn't be taking place at all if women weren't advocating for themselves. Men can advocate for themselves too, but I just don't want to see it done by pitting themselves _against _women and minimizing their struggles. I think we can agree on that, just as you don't want to see men's struggles minimized.



Dezir said:


> Trying to fix the wage gap artificially while the salaries are private is like trying to fix a boat with a hole in it by taking a bucket to get rid of the water inside the boat. It will always be unstable, you cannot have 0% pay gap as long as everybody doesn't know everybody else's salaries.


In the US, it is illegal to prevent an employee from disclosing their pay, however companies are not forced to make it public and there are still some issues about it.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Eren Jaegerbomb said:


> I was going to work in the mines but my dad advised against it because it's too rough and too many men, etc.


I lived in Kalgoorlie for a year and my eyes were opened to how intrinsically sexist and racist a community could be, openly. It's the kind of place where you can see has been transported back to 100 years ago in some respects. I wouldn't advise my daughters to work there either.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Eren Jaegerbomb said:


> People seriously doubt she did the code because she's a woman? How sad.


This happens every time. Remember the black hole pic? Her algorithm was credited by the media with this, possible slow news week. But because the algorithm itself was not actually used she got the standard Gamergate spa treatment even though she repeatedly credited her team of men and women. Her male teammates even tried advocating on her behalf due to the harassment.



https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/us/katie-bouman-mit-black-hole-algorithm-sci-trnd/index.htm



"Counternarrative" ...with choice screenshots.









NYT: Katie Bouman's Algorithm 'Was Not Ultimately Used' to Create Black Hole Image


The top story pushed by the media on Wednesday was false, according to a new report in the New York Times



www.informationliberation.com





BTW women would not get hired more if paid less because outsourcing is still very much a thing. You can't get cheaper than third world sweatshops and exchange rates make it impossible to compete.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Necrofantasia said:


> This happens every time. Remember the black hole pic? Her algorithm was credited by the media with this, possible slow news week. But because the algorithm itself was not actually used she got the standard Gamergate spa treatment even though she repeatedly credited her team of men and women. Her male teammates even tried advocating on her behalf due to the harassment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That first link is dead now.

“Science couldn’t possibly be a team effort. There needs to be a hero somewhere! How can I craft a narrative without a face to idolize?”


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

@Dezir I’m having a hard time following the glove on analogy at work. Is it talking about physical violence? I would say that’s not realistic for most offices for either gender. It would be hard to quantify whether or not men are going “soft” on women in the office because it’s based on perception. You can expect a field like finance to be more cut throat, but I think a lot of offices try to start with understanding then guiding employees past their mistakes. Cutting people down for their mistakes is considered a trait of a toxic manager these days.

In my experience, men are allowed to speak more bluntly than are women in the office. It is expected that a woman will soften the blow when delivering critiques. I have been tone checked myself for speaking too sternly to a male colleague who held up my project because of not doing his part of the work. Even though I felt I was justified. I’m a pretty agreeable person. I began trying to contact him asking where are we on this? How’s it coming along? Do you need anything from me? Let’s keep each other in the loop while working remotely. Nothing for weeks. Then I got angry and started cc’ing hire ups and telling him to take some pride in his work and do his job, the way we agreed that he would, by the specified time. And I did get in trouble for this even though the project was two weeks behind schedule. I don’t think men behave this way with other men at work. Not communicating and not doing your work would be unacceptable behavior. And another man would be able to call you out.

Meanwhile the young men at work talk very short and bluntly with me and everyone else. So long as it is true, then your feelings don’t matter. I understand that feelings are not meant to be felt in the workplace, but I bring this up because this does not strike me as a gloves on thing men are doing to make women comfortable. If anything the women are expected to speak nicely at all times, even when confronting behaviors that are not nice.

One thing that can’t be ignored in a discussion about the sexes in the workplace is..well sex. I don’t know to what degree men are treating women nicer in the workplace, simply because women are the fairer sex. There could be sexual reasons for this too. Look at how men treat you when they don’t find you romantically attractive. That would be the real test lol. Some men are cognizant of this and try to avoid looking at you and try to act cold towards you so as not to fall into any accusations of sexual impropriety. I feel kind of bad for them, but I understand and appreciate what they are trying to do. 

I witnessed two of them kind of struggling internally with how to behave around me when we were both going through the same door lol. One manager and one VP, both who I liked very well but didn’t interact with. They were kind of just like “should I hold it open for her because she’s a woman or should i not hold it open for her because she is a regular employee who I should treat as I would any other? Gaahhh the struggle.”


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

beth x said:


> Do you really expect me to read and answer all this? Your ignorance is too large and too wide to know where to begin and you don't listen. I'd rather just tell you to STFU because there are rules here about posting about sexism. You need to understand that. I have been giving you a chance to understand and learn rather than throwing you off here. I'll try to tell you why without bothering to read what I know is going to be full of sneering attitudes toward women, with stereotypes and peaks and valleys of anecdotes, and badly thought-out parables.
> 
> I'll just answer the reason why you don't understand women, their experience, families, the way that traditional roles are enforced, and how it affects wages. I've explained this in the pages before. I keep explaining it and you are still hip to the "choices" in the way women are affected by DV. You know what? You don't see the DV coming in a lot of cases until after you've been put into a situation where you are vulnerable, like being pregnant or moving in with someone or marrying them. They start when they have an advantage over the relationship, otherwise, women would just say, upon meeting abusers they would say they don't want any part of it.
> 
> ...


Fair point. It's way too long. Realised that after I was finished.

I did try to make a summary in my response to Squrt, who had aproximatively the same objections as you do.

In my experience that is not the case:


> And yes, there are some few cases where the man is really sneaky and the woman could have seen it coming, but even then she could leave him right after finding out. But in general, in those cases with the woman being lovestruck by a parasite, that man is full of red flags, red flags bigger than the flag of China, the woman just couldn't see it or didn't want to see it because she loves him.


You don't have a sudden realisation long after you moved in. Rather everyone knows it but you long after you moved it. Either because you refuse to see the red flags because you're in love, or you ignore them as you don't care about them, but the red flags are there, and lots of them.

You are strawmanning me right now. I never said women = entitled Karens. I said some women are entitled Karens. And gave that specific example. Never said nor do I believe that all women are entitled Karens as you try to frame me.

Again, never said they "ask for it". Strawmanning me again.

Never said that "they should be put back in their place" either. 

I don't think you're doing this with bad intent, I think you really just misunderstand me.

Well, yes.... domestic violence is gendered. That's because men are the stronger sex and would almost always be able to overpower a woman if it comes down to it. I could be able to tell you that without using a study on how women are 35% more likely to be abused by their partner if she does get a higher wage than them.

I fully get your point that my original reply to you is too long, but I think my reply to Squrt is more manageable.


OrchidSugar said:


> @Dezir I’m having a hard time following the glove on analogy at work. Is it talking about physical violence? I would say that’s not realistic for most offices for either gender. It would be hard to quantify whether or not men are going “soft” on women in the office because it’s based on perception. You can expect a field like finance to be more cut throat, but I think a lot of offices try to start with understanding then guiding employees past their mistakes. Cutting people down for their mistakes is considered a trait of a toxic manager these days.
> 
> In my experience, men are allowed to speak more bluntly than are women in the office. It is expected that a woman will soften the blow when delivering critiques. I have been tone checked myself for speaking too sternly to a male colleague who held up my project because of not doing his part of the work. Even though I felt I was justified. I’m a pretty agreeable person. I began trying to contact him asking where are we on this? How’s it coming along? Do you need anything from me? Let’s keep each other in the loop while working remotely. Nothing for weeks. Then I got angry and started cc’ing hire ups and telling him to take some pride in his work and do his job, the way we agreed that he would, by the specified time. And I did get in trouble for this even though the project was two weeks behind schedule. I don’t think men behave this way with other men at work. Not communicating and not doing your work would be unacceptable behavior. And another man would be able to call you out.
> 
> ...


Yes, physical violence is exactly part of it. But so is being treated better in a business enviroment. People being more forgiving with women and so on.

I agree, it's based on perception indeed. And I agree there's a lot of variables, but I think women are generally treated better than men on average in this regard, all things aside.

Fair point, a man is more allowed to be rude, good point. But at the same time, you are more allowed to be rude towards a man than rude towards a woman. Talk badly towards a man and everyone is like "it's okay" talk badly towards a woman and everyone is like "what is wrong with you?". Same job, same position. 

Pros and cons I guess.

It depends, I don't know the details, but just from what you told me you were right to do what you did and PR overreacted. Can't tell for sure whether men behaving the same would have had the same effect.

I see, interesting. Quite unusual what that man did in my experience. How did the rest of men/people react? in my experience, when something like this happen, the man who said those bad things takes the blame, even if he was right, if not just because of the way in which he was saying it, too harsh. But I could also depend from company to company, the culture.

lol, I never talk sex at work, not even remotely, it feels like the most inappropiate of inappropiate subjects. Rather, look how men treat other men they have no interest in, that would be the real test of character. If you're nice to someone you don't have anything to gain from, or any interest from them, that's a real test of character. Not the hot girl/guy you are attracted to, because everyone is nice with people they like. The beggar on the street or the cleaning lady or the waiter.

I can't tell here because I've never even heard of any accusations of sexual impropriety so it's a foreign concept for me. But I heard about them on the news, and can understand why some men are wary about them. But then again, you talk sex at work? I don't, not out of fear of accusations but because I find it very inappropiate and it's not my business or their business.

This: “should I hold it open for her because she’s a woman or should i not hold it open for her because she is a regular employee who I should treat as I would any other? Gaahhh the struggle”. One of the dumbest things feminism managed to cause. I would just hold the door, not because you're a woman, because it's a nice thing to do.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> Yes, physical violence is exactly part of it. But so is being treated better in a business enviroment. People being more forgiving with women and so on.


It sounded like you were bringing up how women don’t know how much men are holding back on them in the workplace. And that men are using gloves to deal with women. I just didn’t understand if you meant to say that physical violence is what would occur if men weren’t holding back at work with women. To that I would say that any physical violence would be an automatic grounds for dismissal at most workplaces, regardless of gender. I cannot understand how the boxing gloves analogy came up in a discussion about the wage gap.



Dezir said:


> I agree, it's based on perception indeed. And I agree there's a lot of variables, but I think women are generally treated better than men on average in this regard, all things aside.
> 
> Fair point, a man is more allowed to be rude, good point. But at the same time, you are more allowed to be rude towards a man than rude towards a woman. Talk badly towards a man and everyone is like "it's okay" talk badly towards a woman and everyone is like "what is wrong with you?". Same job, same position.


I’m not sure I followed this fully. If we are just talking about the workplace, a woman who is rude cannot ascend the ladder all that well. A man who is rude can so long as his worth ethic/productivity is high.



Dezir said:


> I see, interesting. Quite unusual what that man did in my experience. How did the rest of men/people react? in my experience, when something like this happen, the man who said those bad things takes the blame, even if he was right, if not just because of the way in which he was saying it, too harsh. But I could also depend from company to company, the culture.


I got scolded by both my boss (a woman) and his boss (a man.) Not because what I said wasn’t true, but because I didn’t say it nicely. I was told that I was overreacting and to give the benefit of the doubt, even though I had already given it for several weeks. And I made an apology because I felt it was the right thing to do if I had indeed behaved unprofessionally. But I did not feel sorry.

The incompetence continued and I had to keep asking him over and over to correct things. “Please make the changes we discussed. That is incorrect. Please fix it. Make the edits as outlined please. I don’t understand why you changed the section that was already approved.” On and on. So the only lessons I learned from the situation:

1. My projects and my needs are not important.
2. It is okay not to do the work you were tasked with doing.
3. It is more important to be nice and maintain harmony than it is to move the project along.
4. Reputation slander is an effective method of moving a project along, but needs to be wielded more carefully and subtly, in a way that does not cause hurt feelings or direct confrontation.



Dezir said:


> lol, I never talk sex at work, not even remotely
> [...]
> I can't tell here because I've never even heard of any accusations of sexual impropriety so it's a foreign concept for me. But I heard about them on the news, and can understand why some men are wary about them. But then again, you talk sex at work? I don't, not out of fear of accusations but because I find it very inappropiate and it's not my business or their business.


I think you misunderstood me that time. I don’t talk about sex at work. What I meant is that the possibility of sex and sexual/romantic attraction could be one factor contributing to how men treat women at work. Men who were not romantically attracted to me were able to speak more callously and bluntly. (If they wanted to.)



Dezir said:


> This: “should I hold it open for her because she’s a woman or should i not hold it open for her because she is a regular employee who I should treat as I would any other? Gaahhh the struggle”. One of the dumbest things feminism managed to cause. I would just hold the door, not because you're a woman, because it's a nice thing to do.


I wouldn’t be so quick to blame feminism for this, rather certain people’s reaction to feminism. As you said, you do it because you want to, not because you believe that women are inherently inferior or incapable of opening a door.This is a question of individual morality and mindset. If suddenly women having equal access to opportunities like, work, politics, and education made you think you couldn’t hold the door for them anymore, then that has more to do with your own mindset. If you only hold the door for women because you want to display chivalry to them bc of attraction, then I guess it’s reasonable that you won’t hold the door for a woman who you don’t find attractive. That’s your prerogative, has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with how you see women.

Holding the door is a basic custom in America, but I have lived in places where that is not an expected cultural norm. I have had the door slammed in my face before by both men and women. That gesture is just not a part of their culture. But it is a normalized expectation in America, so unless you are just oblivious, you kind of have to go out of your way not to. “Why I’m gonna get those feminists. I’ll show them equality!”


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> It sounded like you were bringing up how women don’t know how much men are holding back on them in the workplace. And that men are using gloves to deal with women. I just didn’t understand if you meant to say that physical violence is what would occur if men weren’t holding back at work with women. To that I would say that any physical violence would be an automatic grounds for dismissal at most workplaces, regardless of gender. I cannot understand how the boxing gloves analogy came up in a discussion about the wage gap.
> 
> I’m not sure I followed this fully. If we are just talking about the workplace, a woman who is rude cannot ascend the ladder all that well. A man who is rude can so long as his worth ethic/productivity is high.
> 
> ...


I was bringing up the argument abotu violence & workplace. Not violence at workplace. As in, if you are a man/woman and pour coffe on a random person on the street, whether accidental or intentional, you're way more likely to get beaten as a man than as a woman. Or at least them being aggressive towards you, wishing to go for a fight, rather than defusal.

At the same time, if you are at work. Let's say you work on something, let's say an engine. And mess things up, do a mistake as: a man, a woman. You are way more likely to get an "it's okay" as a woman, and way more likely to get screamed at "you idiot", "wtf?", or even passive-aggressiveness if the company's policy is really strict, as a man. In this sense I said women are treated with gloves, they don't get the same "penalisation" men have. As a woman, you're more likely to get an "it's okay" for a mistake, as a man you're more likely to get screamed at for a mistake. In the same situation of making a mistake, I think as a women you're less likely to get a 'get out', but not shouted just being asked to leave, perhaps asked nicely like "leave this to me". But as a man you're more likely to get a 'get out' for a mistake, being asked to leave, "get out" literally like that. Because you can afford being more aggressive towards a man. Be more aggressive towards a woman and you're a brute.

Not in my experience. Most higher-up women are really rude in my experience. They are bossy and embrace it. But I do see your point that a man is more allowed to be rude up to the point where he becomes "bossy" than a woman is. Because women are usually soft. A slight deviation from the norm would be seen as "bossy" for a woman. Where as the normal of men would be seen as the bossy of women because they're already allowed to speak more aggresively, but not towards women generally.

Rather than go all out on him, go talk to your boss about it. "He's not doing that, he's not doing this, what do I do?", "I already told him (use text or e-mail to have living proof of you asking him for it)".

What happened to you sucks, it's really unfair, but I don't think it was a gender-related issue but rather upper management issue. They might have gotten the wrong impression.

Oh, yes, I completely agree, the possibility of sex and sexual/romantic attraction could be one factor contributing to how men treat women at work. Goes both ways. Men are always more nice to hot women. Women are always more nice to hot men.

I do it because I want to, not because I believe that women are inherently inferior or incapable of opening a door. But at the same time, I can totally see how "maybe she thinks this is sexist?" would skew a man's vision. Like "I don't need a man holding the door for me", "fine, I won't do it next time". But plenty of men are intimidated by this. There is a point where basic human decency overlaps in contradiction feminists expectations. Not saying all people are like that, but there's a subset who are.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> I was bringing up the argument abotu violence & workplace. Not violence at workplace. As in, if you are a man/woman and pour coffe on a random person on the street, whether accidental or intentional, you're way more likely to get beaten as a man than as a woman. Or at least them being aggressive towards you, wishing to go for a fight, rather than defusal.


OK so you were talking about street violence? Who do you think the threat of physical violence against men is coming from primarily? Do you think that most women would react like this to a man pouring coffee on them in public? I just don't think so.



Dezir said:


> At the same time, if you are at work. Let's say you work on something, let's say an engine. And mess things up, do a mistake as: a man, a woman. You are way more likely to get an "it's okay" as a woman, and way more likely to get screamed at "you idiot", "wtf?", or even passive-aggressiveness if the company's policy is really strict, as a man. In this sense I said women are treated with gloves, they don't get the same "penalisation" men have. As a woman, you're more likely to get an "it's okay" for a mistake, as a man you're more likely to get screamed at for a mistake. In the same situation of making a mistake, I think as a women you're less likely to get a 'get out', but not shouted just being asked to leave, perhaps asked nicely like "leave this to me". But as a man you're more likely to get a 'get out' for a mistake, being asked to leave, "get out" literally like that. Because you can afford being more aggressive towards a man. Be more aggressive towards a woman and you're a brute.


This does not sound like a corporate workplace issue. I would be interested to hear how people working in manual labor and in physically-demanding jobs would describe their experiences of men going easy on women. More importantly, I would be interested to hear the reasons why. 

It sounds like you think that if a woman wanted equal access to those job opportunities, then she should be willing and able to withstand an equal amount of verbal abuse.



Dezir said:


> Rather than go all out on him, go talk to your boss about it. "He's not doing that, he's not doing this, what do I do?", "I already told him (use text or e-mail to have living proof of you asking him for it)".
> 
> What happened to you sucks, it's really unfair, but I don't think it was a gender-related issue but rather upper management issue. They might have gotten the wrong impression.


Yes you could be very right about that not being a gender thing. I, of course, did have written proof, but that no longer mattered and no one wanted to investigate because I committed the cardinal sin of not speaking nicely. I didn't curse. I didn't call names. But I did say you need to take more pride in your work and do your part and please send me x,y,z. I didn't think that was wrong, but I have to listen to what people tell me when it comes to business matters. 

It only seemed like a gender issue given the wider context over time. The men who spoke sternly were never tone-checked for it. Similarly, the issue of not responding, of disappearing, of not meeting deadlines, of not being thorough and careful with work, of letting the same problems repeat, etc came up constantly with different women and men. Each time it was always communicated to the younger women to not take it personally, to give the benefit of the doubt, and then finally, to use covert reputation destruction strategies to get people shamed into doing their work. This was very effective in the short term, but it wasn't efficient, and did nothing to change long-term patterns of behavior. 



Dezir said:


> I do it because I want to, not because I believe that women are inherently inferior or incapable of opening a door. But at the same time, I can totally see how "maybe she thinks this is sexist?" would skew a man's vision. Like "I don't need a man holding the door for me", "fine, I won't do it next time". But plenty of men are intimidated by this. There is a point where basic human decency overlaps in contradiction feminists expectations. Not saying all people are like that, but there's a subset who are.


The subset of women who don't like the door being held for them cannot speak for all women. Nor can a subset of men who wish for women to have equal access to physical violence speak for all men. 

When you say "plenty of men are intimidated by this." I think that is more the heart of the matter. A general confusion and re-adjusting to how to interact with women under feminism. Most guys seem to want to be competent and want to do well and be productive. But they are so confused about how to treat/interact with women now that women seem to have more agency. And the young men, especially seem to be very confused about their place and where they can provide value and prove their worth, outside of work, in a co-ed social environment. The reason being is that while femininity has changed greatly, masculinity has not. Our society, hasn't really made space for it, in my opinion. So a lot of men feel like their domain is being encroached upon by women and they are confused, angered, or disgusted by this. 

Finally, I will speak a little bit towards men who have misplaced anger and rage and violence in their hearts. When I was a kid, I could not bear some of the injustice of the world. On the subject of the American slave trade, for example, I would ask, "Why have black people not enslaved white people in this country? Wouldn't that be true equality?" And it was a bit absurd to think that we should counter violence with more violence, right? That is why I do not understand men who believe that if women want to be equal in the workplace they should put up with the same abuses as men do. Wouldn't that energy be best spent organizing labor unions or ousting abusive leaders, rather than punching down at women?


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Dezir said:


> Most of the answers are going to be from my too long response to beth, maybe I can make it shorter here with just the essential stuff.


To be fair I can't get super thorough and deep with answers mostly because of time and attention, but I'm trying more than I usually do here, lol.



Dezir said:


> The specifics about what I think this looks like is this:
> 
> "women are physically assaulted under a lot of circumstances, not just because they act like "entitled Karens." So... like I said, specifics would be really helpful to understand what you mean".
> 
> Those other circumstances being domestic abuse, if I understood beth correctly.


The difference might be in a perceived imbalance of power, rather than entitlement, and that is what would make an altercation abusive. This isn't just between men and women, but between everyone. If a bloke spills coffee intentionally on you, and he looks to be in your "weight class", it's more likely you'll feel comfortable confronting him aggressively if that is your inclination. 

Women can also be more verbally abusive to each other in the workplace than they are with men. I've unfortunately seen that a lot.



Dezir said:


> "We were originally talking about women wanting to enter professions that are male dominated and be paid equally, or women who want to take leadership positions. How does that make them entitled and "going all out on men"?"
> 
> Mainly this:


So you mean how they only want nice cushy jobs instead of harsh ones, like mining? Beth was making the case a while back that one thing that keeps women out of professions like mining is persistent sexual harassment, not for lack of trying. I also know a fair number of ladies interested in welding and other trades, but in many places, trades are declining in general for younger workers in the last few years where I live. It's an important trend to keep in mind for that Jordan Peterson video, because the lack of support for trade professions compared to professions that require a college degree has been a major problem in the US (not sure about elsewhere). I don't think feminists are against women entering these jobs any more than anyone else.



Dezir said:


> I don't see how Merriam-Webster's definition implies using intimidation is also manipulating:
> 
> Manipulate Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
> 
> To be successfully intimidating one takes only brute force not some artfulness. It is a means to gain an advantage, but not all means to gain an advantage are manipulation. Otherwise we would label F1 teams building better endings as "manipulation" but nobody does that.


You don't know intimidating, then. I grew up with an ex-convict who could get a band of skinheads to back down with one look. It was definitely an art.



Dezir said:


> I'm not saying that women are insidious. I'm saying women can be more insidious by their nature than men if they want to. Just like men can be more aggressive by their nature than men if they want to. Do all men want that? no. Do all women want that? no. The skill is there, but just because the skill is there it doesn't mean you are using it for bad intent.


I'm not sure where you're getting all these assumptions about the way men and women are "by nature." Jordan Peterson?

I've no reason to assume men can't be manipulative, or that women are born manipulative, or that women can't be aggressive, or men are always aggressive. There is too much grey area for this to be useful to argue about.



Dezir said:


> Ok, I get what you mean about Pink-collar jobs Pink-collar worker - Wikipedia. But I mean male-dominated jobs. Why not have a woman manager if you can only pay her 77% of a male manager?


From what I've read, the pay gap isn't on purpose. They aren't hiring with an explicit thought that, "This applicant is woman. Great! Now we can offer a lower salary!" It is more of an implicit bias where they think they're evaluating male and female applicants the same when they aren't (until salaries are openly shared, which is part of why making them public would help mitigate the gap).



Dezir said:


> "I said his comments were sexist and that he didn't understand women's perspectives, and that was about it."
> 
> Well, yes, that's what I meant by: A generic "you are a racist, sexist, deplorable, racist, mysoginistic man" TM. You didn't disagree or prove wrong any of his points. In fact, you didn't address any of this points.


I'm not obligated to give a breakdown of every reason I viewed his post as sexist (which isn't a slur or something, btw. That is why I provided a definition, where none of it says "deplorable racist misogynistic anti-semitist" or whatever). I'd think he (and you) are smart enough to figure out how many of his statements could be viewed that way. If you cared, you would, and I'd be wasting my breath if you didn't.

The point he tried to make that I was interested in was how "safety" can only be taken in context of physical harm, which is silly, because the word is used in many different contexts. Yet, this is the origin of the debate about like, "knocking out" women that we've been discussing for the last few pages, lol.



Dezir said:


> "In order to say something is false, it needs to be something that can be tested_. _General claims like these I can't evaluate in a straight-forward way because they are not specific enough and there are too many assumptions."
> 
> I believe I have been specific enough. Heck, if anything, maybe too specific (long post).


Yes, you have been giving specifics, so thank you!



Dezir said:


> Explaining why my assumption that there is something wrong with a feminine-looking man compared to a masculine one seems to be causing a bias.


That there is something _wrong _with a feminine-looking man _is the bias _I meant. What is wrong with that? There are all sorts of folks that exist out there, it doesn't make them dangerous or sick for men to have more feminine features... I really have no idea what to do with that belief.



Dezir said:


> Explaining why my opinion is furthering your observations about the denigration of feminine traits and the modern perception that they are weak, dysfunctional, and undesirable.







Dezir said:


> I understand you think I have a bias because I think there is something wrong with a feminine-looking man, my question is why do you think that is a bias given this?
> 
> In other words, which parts of this you find wrong and why?


I explained it three times earlier. If you're not going to accept the why, I need to know what you're objecting to in the explanation, as well, so we can move forward. I was objecting to your value judgements, it is true, because a lot of this topic is about people making value judgements based on sex.

For brevity, I think the thing that really stood out in your description of that idea was the absence of a role for men at all. Like, because single moms exist and schoolteachers are often women, men simply don't have any influence anymore. Are they ghosts in the world? They bear no responsibility for the problem; and this explanation seems to argue that it is women's fault that men are messed up. It is up to a woman to choose a good partner, not a man to be a good partner. It seemed like all the blame for any dysfunction of boys was placed on women and their roles in raising them, teaching them in schools, about choosing partners, etc.

If men and women's issues are to be discussed together, they should also bear responsibility together, yeah? I think @OrchidSugar is explaining this stuff better than me, lol.



Dezir said:


> I understand you think bad things about Lonewaer. But I don't really care about that. I care why do you think his points are wrong?


I honestly don't think much about him. It's interesting how you both freaked out that I said his views were sexist. That lady who didn't want to hire a man as an assistant was also openly sexist in her decision-making and I told her that, too. Spade is a spade.

Which points?



Dezir said:


> I meant that women are more manipulative in that specific sense. Because they are more in tune with social roles and social dynamics than men. They have learned to rely on connections to "get their job done". Being sneaky about it if you well. Were as men rely on strength.
> 
> They hate a man and want them out of their company? They aren't going to use physical strength or intimation to get things done. That won't work. They are going to use relations, connection. Maybe talk with a co-worked about how bad they are, spreading a rumor, telling their boss, even being a snitch about it, making something up. Using connections to get things done, using their influence, women are way better at this game than men are.
> 
> ...


Again, there are so many grey areas it gets hard to discuss in this black and white way. Not all men can "rely on strength" and not all women are "in tune with social roles and social dynamics." What about people who can do both (they exist too)? I just don't see the point in drawing these lines except to alienate people needlessly.



Dezir said:


> WAGE GAP: I'm not saying wage gap isn't because of sexism. I'm saying sexism is not the only thing contributing to a wage gap. There are wage gaps everywhere because of the way our current financial system with employee - employeer relationships work, and sexism is just one of them.
> 
> My point is that sexism is just one of them, not the main thing TM. If we would fix sexism wage gap artificially (by force), age gap or race gap would still exist, because the main issue that caused these gaps in the first place wasn't fixed. And I can't guarnatee for how long that forced fix would last.


The fix is to be more transparent, but that also depends on how much collective power the group being discriminated against has... women have gained much more bargaining power in the workforce than they had 100 years ago. But things like ethnicity would likely also have ongoing issues, too.



Dezir said:


> It's not that I disagree with what you're saying, I agree, including your point about stereotypes, it's that I don't think that's the whole picture. It's good that feminists are putting a focus on it. But at the end of the day it's still trying to fix a boat with water using a bucket. They need to look broader.


I think they do... or at least, some reasonable circles do. I don't really get deep in all the various political action groups.



Dezir said:


> I remember I read this in 3 different places. Jordan Peterson, a study about how women in the workforce caused women to be less happy and satisfied with life overall, and another psychologist who said the exact same thing that women are more content and happy being family oridented because women in general are interested in people. Men by contrast, are more content and happy being highly ambitious because men in general are more interested in things. I'll look for them if you want, in the meanwhile I found this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your two examples might not have anything to do with their gender, though. You might just as well find a man that hated his job and a woman that loved hers. If you look at statistics (which I'm going to do when someone makes a claim that women leave their jobs more than men because they are dissatisfied with hustle culture or whatever), most surveys find that women are more satisfied with their jobs than men or it is about even. Apparently, the reason this can be despite a pay gap is that pay is more important for men in job satisfaction than for women. That brings up a potential issue with eliminating the pay gap:











Job satisfaction among American workers continues to increase, but there are more reasons than salary: poll - pennlive.com

It might be that women may on average still earn less across the board even without sexism, because it isn't like men as a sole breadwinner has completely gone away. As long as that family structure is still around, some women are free to take jobs for less pay if their spouses earn enough, or not engage in the workplace as much, incentivizing men to take higher paying jobs to support a family and making those women more likely to focus on other aspects of a job besides pay. Unless these families are completely eliminated or very low in percentage, or this is balanced by women becoming sole-breadwinners and supporting men in equal proportion, no "natural" policy could close the gap completely as a function of basic economics.

Money, Gender and Job Satisfaction - The New York Times (nytimes.com)\

You see a lot of angry comments in the above article complaining that single mothers and dual-income households negate the possibility that women are less pressured to attain high incomes in the workplace. Yet:

Table 4. Families with own children: Employment status of parents by age of youngest child and family type, 2020-2021 annual averages - 2021 A01 Results (bls.gov) 

According to the above, 29% of households with opposite-sex parents and a child under 18 years had only the father employed in the US in 2021. This made up 19% of all types of families surveyed. Households with employed single mothers were at 11% of all families surveyed. Of all families, 42% had two parents who were both employed (but it doesn't mention their genders or degree of employment). At least with those numbers, it seems significant enough to say that family structure might have an influence, but it would be hard to prove exactly what the balance would have to be to cause an effect on pay, and how strong it would be compared to other influences.

Curious what others think about this... if I'm missing something. I'm thinking that it is similar to how in price negotiation, if you're undercutting your competition because you can afford it or simply don't know the value of your product, it can bring the entire industry down. I knew a lady who was selling a product at much lower prices than her competitors because she said she was "doing it as a hobby" instead of a business, but it made her competitors angry because she was undercutting them and making it appear that they must be over-charging when they were just trying to get a fair price for their labor and were dependent on that income.

However, Jordan Peterson still comes off as kind of insidious (if I may say) when he twisted the argument into a conclusion that women "should be" home raising a family because that is where they'll be happiest (even though they often report high levels of job satisfaction). That fantasy about women being "more domestic" sounds like it is coloring his investigation into why women might leave a job. He doesn't really provide any data about it, either, which seems warranted given how he argues for cause and effect.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Dezir said:


> Fair point. It's way too long. Realised that after I was finished.
> 
> I did try to make a summary in my response to Squrt, who had aproximatively the same objections as you do.
> 
> ...


Some men are entitled Karens. We don't call them Karens though. We have a nice easy stereotype of a middle-aged women who want to talk to the manager because they are entitled and want everyone their way. We don't have the same kind of middle aged male being entitled because we expect it from them. Ask anyone in the retail or service industry. Even when you drive to work you have what we call MAMILs out in large groups and taking up the road on their bikes, riding three abreast and not giving a toss about cars trying to get past them. If anyone has to be treated with courtesy by default it is them. 

You don't have to say they should be put back in their place. The inference is already there. When you explain why a woman is hit and that some are entitled that is EXACTLY what you mean by stating their wrongdoing, their misstep, their being out of line, that they are acting out. Do you see what I mean here? You are looking at the woman who is being hit as if she makes the choice to be in that situation rather than the man doing the hitting. It's a fundamental flaw. If I hit you randomly in the street you would not look for the thing you did wrong to be hit would you? You would think that there was something wrong with me, justifiably.

The men who abuse are extremely manipulative at times. The means to go about controlling women over and above is also about controlling their own behaviour and being that ideal person at the start of a relationship. This is not a strawman. It's pretty well documented. The fact that DV rates rose in the pandemic tells us more about how it happens rather than women making the choice to be with an abuser. It shows us that it was already there. 

I'm using studies to show you facts, figures, and what is actually happening in tangible terms. You however are talking as if your experience somehow trumps it and using language that blames women for what happens to them. You don't understand how sociology gives these figures over the lifespan for men and women and how it steers govts to step in and act in certain ways (if they are doing their job right). Sociology will look at an aging population and figure how elderly people are being looked after and how population booms occur as they did in the pandemic. They will give insight into how people will need extra support and infrastructure to cope with it.

I hold the door open for the person behind or in front of me. FFS, It's not a struggle and it's not a war between sexes on how to act, it's just being polite. I'll hold the door open for anyone who has full hands, I won't wait for a man to come and then close the door in his face because I'm floundering over what my sex role is. Just hold the door open for anyone and you will be fine.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> OK so you were talking about street violence? Who do you think the threat of physical violence against men is coming from primarily? Do you think that most women would react like this to a man pouring coffee on them in public? I just don't think so.


From other men. What do you mean? Do you mean a woman reacting like that to a man if she was accidently or intentionally poured coffe on by a man? No, I just don't think so.

I see your point, that all that violence that is coming towards men does come from men. And I agree. But it doesn't change my initial point, if anything sort of confirms it, that men treat women with gloves.



OrchidSugar said:


> This does not sound like a corporate workplace issue. I would be interested to hear how people working in manual labor and in physically-demanding jobs would describe their experiences of men going easy on women. More importantly, I would be interested to hear the reasons why.
> 
> It sounds like you think that if a woman wanted equal access to those job opportunities, then she should be willing and able to withstand an equal amount of verbal abuse.


I was just giving an example, you can apply it to corporate workplace as well.

No, I don't think that, I think women should be allowed equal job opportunities. The original point where this started from was "male privilege". I was pointing out that female privilege also exists.



OrchidSugar said:


> Yes you could be very right about that not being a gender thing. I, of course, did have written proof, but that no longer mattered and no one wanted to investigate because I committed the cardinal sin of not speaking nicely. I didn't curse. I didn't call names. But I did say you need to take more pride in your work and do your part and please send me x,y,z. I didn't think that was wrong, but I have to listen to what people tell me when it comes to business matters.
> 
> It only seemed like a gender issue given the wider context over time. The men who spoke sternly were never tone-checked for it. Similarly, the issue of not responding, of disappearing, of not meeting deadlines, of not being thorough and careful with work, of letting the same problems repeat, etc came up constantly with different women and men. Each time it was always communicated to the younger women to not take it personally, to give the benefit of the doubt, and then finally, to use covert reputation destruction strategies to get people shamed into doing their work. This was very effective in the short term, but it wasn't efficient, and did nothing to change long-term patterns of behavior.


My mechanic worked for years at a prestigious company. Now he has his own business, why did he quit? In his own words: If the boss said that grass is red, grass was red, you had to agree with him, no matter how stupid and off the point he was. I do something right, he doesn't like it, calls me stupid, it's still my fault.

That guy is very good at his job, probably why he has his own business that didn't go bankrupt in the first place.



OrchidSugar said:


> The subset of women who don't like the door being held for them cannot speak for all women. Nor can a subset of men who wish for women to have equal access to physical violence speak for all men.
> 
> When you say "plenty of men are intimidated by this." I think that is more the heart of the matter. A general confusion and re-adjusting to how to interact with women under feminism. Most guys seem to want to be competent and want to do well and be productive. But they are so confused about how to treat/interact with women now that women seem to have more agency. And the young men, especially seem to be very confused about their place and where they can provide value and prove their worth, outside of work, in a co-ed social environment. The reason being is that while femininity has changed greatly, masculinity has not. Our society, hasn't really made space for it, in my opinion. So a lot of men feel like their domain is being encroached upon by women and they are confused, angered, or disgusted by this.
> 
> Finally, I will speak a little bit towards men who have misplaced anger and rage and violence in their hearts. When I was a kid, I could not bear some of the injustice of the world. On the subject of the American slave trade, for example, I would ask, "Why have black people not enslaved white people in this country? Wouldn't that be true equality?" And it was a bit absurd to think that we should counter violence with more violence, right? That is why I do not understand men who believe that if women want to be equal in the workplace they should put up with the same abuses as men do. Wouldn't that energy be best spent organizing labor unions or ousting abusive leaders, rather than punching down at women?


I agree, nonetheless, they still exist.

Where is the line between more agency for themselves and power over them (the men) ? If a woman doesn't want you to hold the door, fine, don't hold the door. But if she goes to the boss accusing you of doing X and being Y because you held the door for her and she didn't want it, then we no longer talk about more agency for themselves.

Masculinity changed a lot in my opinion as well. In fact, I think my very first post on this topic was about that. I disagree with the stereotypes of the 50s but the "new model of man" 2022 is no good either. We have a simp infestation because men stopped learning how to be men. And partially responsable for this is feminism & power over you disguised as personal agency. Never heard 1 man in my life saying "women take our jobs", it's something feminists say that men say but I've never personally heard one man saying. It's them wanting to gain an unfair advantage that seems that people have a problem with.

Abuse is a good way to put it, but thing is, this is something so normal for men it wouldn't even identify as abuse. Like if I were to go and say "I was abused by my boss", "how so?", "I made a mistake with some papers and my boss to and he screamed at me calling me idiot and then told me to get out" I would be the laughing stock of the entire bar. It's just how men deal with each other in general. I would have prefered it otherwise, but alas.

I never understood the concept of "punching down" in feminist theory. Isn't "punching up" attacking those above you and "punching down" attacking those below you? feminists want equality, so they would want ideally something like "punching left" on women. Why they are using phrases that they themselves detest? Isn't this counter-intuitive? Not saying you are a feminist or it's you that I'm talking about, but read that part with "punching down" and reminded me of a video a feminist using "punching down" as an excuse while they themselves are fighting for equality. It kind of reminds me of that privilege without responsability part from equality.



Squirt said:


> To be fair I can't get super thorough and deep with answers mostly because of time and attention, but I'm trying more than I usually do here, lol.
> 
> The difference might be in a perceived imbalance of power, rather than entitlement, and that is what would make an altercation abusive. This isn't just between men and women, but between everyone. If a bloke spills coffee intentionally on you, and he looks to be in your "weight class", it's more likely you'll feel comfortable confronting him aggressively if that is your inclination.
> 
> ...


I appreciate you trying more here.

Plenty of men have no issues picking on another man below their "weight class". In fact, sometimes they pick on other men exactly because they are below their "weight class".

Interesting, I've heard once or twice women talking about how wamen are more verbally abusive to each other in the workplace than they are with men, but as far as personal experience goes that is impossible for me as a man, can you tell me more?

What about all-female miner work camps? I don't see nearly as much feminism momentum moving towards female miners or lumberjacks (or rather an issue that there aren't 50% women miners, 50% male miners) as I see for CEOs, managers or politicians.

Not that feminists are against women entering these jobs, but rather that they don't advocate for 50% women - 50% men there like they do for the jobs they like.

I'm muscular, I can be pretty intimidating if I want to, it's not an art. Probably not at the level of the ex-convict you grew up with, but it's not an art, you just have to look angry and be well above someone's class.

It wasn't Jordan Peterson but another psychologist, however, I wouldn't doubt if Jordan Peterson made the same case too.

Men can be manipulative, or that women aren't born manipulative, women can be aggressive, or men aren't always aggressive. It's just that on average, women are more manipulative and men more aggressive. I agree that there's a lot of shades of grey, but I was talking about generalities here.

It's market economy. Nothing on the market is on purpose, it just happens. But I guarantee that there's a bunch of managers looking at the salaries and thinking "what can we do to minimise the salaries?" I know that because I've been there in those rooms. Probably every big company has something like that. If they can make money out of it, they will.

I don't mean every reason why you viewed his post as sexist, I mean every reason (well, some reason, you don't have to list them all) why you viewed his post as wrong. A comment can be sexist but right like saying "women are physically weaker than men", it's sexist? yeah, it's wrong? no.

There is something _wrong _with a feminine-looking man that is sucks for them to be this way, they get negative feedback from life because of this, rejection, outcasting, etc; and then they become either angry at the world or double down in their simp ways. Either way, both cases only them stand to lose. Well, not only them, sometimes one may go full Elliot Rogers and the whole world will have to suffer because of them.

It's the men's fault for treating them this way? yeah, but they get mainly rejection from women. I don't think any of them would have problems if men would hate them but women love them, but they don't.

Sure, they may love them "as a friend", but that's like your boss not giving you salary because he loves you as a friend. But then the argument goes "they are not entitled to sex", yes, they aren't, but they want it, and the way they behave, this feminine-looking way, isn't giving them any sex, so they hate it, and get mad at it, and then at the world.

You want sex? convince women to want to have sex with you, how? by not being a feminine-looking man.

So I agree that "they are not entitled to sex" in the same way you are not entitled to have a job, you only have a job because you made all the right moves, you are efficient, capable, offer a good service that your boss wants and so he hired you and gives you salary in return for your services, you weren't entitled to a job but got a job because your boss wanted you, in their case, no women want them because they didn't make the right moves.

I'm objecting because I don't know which part from that train of thought in my OP you find incorrect, the bulletpoints, and why. I did not see it debunked or addressed. For example "You don't look as cool as you want to do and repress that part of yourself, so repressed inferiority complex towards other men", didn't see any of your comments attempting to explain why this is false, maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen it.

No, I argue that it's lack of masculinity that's messed up. And feminists trying to repress that masculinity (despite being something that they themselves want).

I can't speak for myself because although I look masculine I have a fair amount of feminine traits, but in general, the tendency I saw was that the more masculine traits the more mates a guy had. The more feminine traits, the less mates a guy had. The jocks and nerds comparison I made previously, who do you think it's more masculine who do you think it's more feminine? who do women want?

And the women who do that, select more masculine men (even if just because they are biologically inclined to find them more attractive rather than by conscious choice), do that for a good reason. We need masculinity. Those women in question need a masculine man to protect them. Masculinity is still needed. Heck, there's a reason militarily are all manly given military that aren't manly lose.

Well yes -> It is up to a woman to choose a good partner, not a man to be a good partner.
Just like -> It is up to a man to choose a good partner, not a woman to be a good partner.

I agree, common responsability.

But if you are 1 woman, and have to pick between 10 men. And pick the worst man possible. Who domestically abuses you. Is this the fault of the 9 other men? should the 9 other men be better men because you made the wrong choice? The same thing applies gender-reversed.

The point in drawing those lines is to offer a general perspective, they won't be true all the time to everyone everywhere.

It's like saying "men like sports". I don't (lol, going back to the feminine traits part) that doesn't mean saying "men like sports" is incorrect. Even if you were to put me next to a woman who like sports. That still doesn't mean that "men like sports" is incorrect, because on average men like sports far more than women.

The group being discriminated against in this case being everyone who is not an employer.

Employees have far more power than employers, it's in-fighting that kills them. In fighting like this gender war that happens these days with employers and corporations love. Because it keeps them busy. They won't demand better wages if they are at each other's throats. Just give them a better issue to divide people.

So women have more job satisfaction, I agree with that, but at the same time, women can be predominantly found in pink-collar jobs, as opposed to the hustle jobs Jordan Peterson was talking about, so I don't see those statistics contradicting that.

They often report high levels of job satisfaction, but they are often found in pink-collar jobs.









The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness


Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.




www.nber.org







beth x said:


> Some men are entitled Karens. We don't call them Karens though. We have a nice easy stereotype of a middle-aged women who want to talk to the manager because they are entitled and want everyone their way. We don't have the same kind of middle aged male being entitled because we expect it from them. Ask anyone in the retail or service industry. Even when you drive to work you have what we call MAMILs out in large groups and taking up the road on their bikes, riding three abreast and not giving a toss about cars trying to get past them. If anyone has to be treated with courtesy by default it is them.
> 
> You don't have to say they should be put back in their place. The inference is already there. When you explain why a woman is hit and that some are entitled that is EXACTLY what you mean by stating their wrongdoing, their misstep, their being out of line, that they are acting out. Do you see what I mean here? You are looking at the woman who is being hit as if she makes the choice to be in that situation rather than the man doing the hitting. It's a fundamental flaw. If I hit you randomly in the street you would not look for the thing you did wrong to be hit would you? You would think that there was something wrong with me, justifiably.
> 
> ...


What is the male equivalent of Karen? I can think of various types of assholes for men, but none that would be a perfect male equivalent to Karen. Heck, closest thing I can think of is grumpy old men. Because it isn't long for male Karen to get punched our outright beaten if they cat like female Karen. I happen to know a woman who works in retail, she has 2 types of worst costumers: perverts & Karens. No male Karen reported. Just entitled female Karens and weird dudes hitting on them.

Male or female MAMILs, everyone would react the same. But MAMIL isn't quite an overlap to Karen, they are annoying but for very different reasons. And I'd rather have to deal with a MAMIL than Karen.

Well, she does makes the choice to be in that situation technically speaking, doesn't she? nobody asked the Karen to be Karen, she just is. She is behaving like that out of her own volition.

Absolutely, if you were to hit me randomly in the street I would be confused and look for the thing I did wrong to be hit would you, but I think all Karens know what they did wrong. I can imagine some Karens with a huge level of entitlement to be like "what did I do wrong?" but the vast majority of them probably understand deep down that their behavior is bad.

Just to be clear domestic abuse case =/= Karen case. I'm replying to Karens here not domestic abuse.

Nice guys are being that ideal person at the start of a relationship, but you know what they aren't? hot. This is why women don't go for them.

Bad guys on the other hand, are hot.

And they are not ideal by any objective standard looking from outside. It's just the woman being put in that position that sees them as being that ideal person at the start of a relationship because either she doesn't know any better or she chooses to ignore or reject the signs because they love them so much.

Yes, it was already there, it just happened more often in the pandemic because people stay more often at home.

That was exactly my point that it was already there. You didn't suddenly woke up next to an abuser, you flirted, dated and married them.

Where are the studies showing that women have no responsability in choosing who they marry? Studies show us facts, figures, and what is actually happening in tangible terms. It shows us data. How we interpret that data, is up to us. Your studies are accurate, I never disproved your studies, I only disproved your interpretation of the studies and what you think they means. Because you used the studies to prove things that the studies themselves didn't prove.

In fact, I never used my experience. I was never domestically abused nor did I ever domestically abused so I don't see how I can have any experience in this. I have only used my reasoning and what I saw around me. I never disproved the study about the numbers of domestic violence, I'm saying that you're looking for the causes of that domestic violence in the wrong place. What is your proposed solution to domestic violence in fact?

I apply the same standards for men. If men marry a gold-digger, it's their own fault.

You seem to view the mere thought that I believe women have a responsability in this as woman-hating.

Absolutely, I agree with you there, just hold the door open for anyone and you will be fine.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> The original point where this started from was "male privilege". I was pointing out that female privilege also exists.


I agree with you. There are many advantages to being a woman. I also think that anyone can have more privilege over anyone else, depending on the criteria you are using. No matter what, you can always find someone doing better than you or worse than you, depending on the criteria. But I do think it's possible 



Dezir said:


> My mechanic worked for years at a prestigious company. Now he has his own business, why did he quit? In his own words: If the boss said that grass is red, grass was red, you had to agree with him, no matter how stupid and off the point he was. I do something right, he doesn't like it, calls me stupid, it's still my fault.
> 
> That guy is very good at his job, probably why he has his own business that didn't go bankrupt in the first place.


I'm not sure what you're arguing here, but it's an inspiring story of triumph from your friend. 



Dezir said:


> Where is the line between more agency for themselves and power over them (the men) ? If a woman doesn't want you to hold the door, fine, don't hold the door. But if she goes to the boss accusing you of doing X and being Y because you held the door for her and she didn't want it, then we no longer talk about more agency for themselves.
> 
> Masculinity changed a lot in my opinion as well. In fact, I think my very first post on this topic was about that. I disagree with the stereotypes of the 50s but the "new model of man" 2022 is no good either. We have a simp infestation because men stopped learning how to be men. And partially responsable for this is feminism & power over you disguised as personal agency. Never heard 1 man in my life saying "women take our jobs", it's something feminists say that men say but I've never personally heard one man saying. It's them wanting to gain an unfair advantage that seems that people have a problem with.


I never heard a man say that about women taking their jobs. Funny enough, I've never heard a feminist argue that either. So I'm not sure what you mean about women wanting to exert power over men either. The natural result of a co-ed workspace is that positions of power will be held by both men and women. 

But did you have some experience with this behavior? A woman accusing a colleague of X and Y because he held the door for her and she didn't want it? Or something of that nature? 



Dezir said:


> Abuse is a good way to put it, but thing is, this is something so normal for men it wouldn't even identify as abuse. Like if I were to go and say "I was abused by my boss", "how so?", "I made a mistake with some papers and my boss to and he screamed at me calling me idiot and then told me to get out" I would be the laughing stock of the entire bar. It's just how men deal with each other in general. I would have prefered it otherwise, but alas.


Yeah, I would have preferred it otherwise as well. I think it's a shame that toxic behaviors are normalized to such a degree that they become firmly entrenched. All the same, I would hate for other people to have to experience that.



Dezir said:


> I never understood the concept of "punching down" in feminist theory. Isn't "punching up" attacking those above you and "punching down" attacking those below you? feminists want equality, so they would want ideally something like "punching left" on women. Why they are using phrases that they themselves detest? Isn't this counter-intuitive? Not saying you are a feminist or it's you that I'm talking about, but read that part with "punching down" and reminded me of a video a feminist using "punching down" as an excuse while they themselves are fighting for equality. It kind of reminds me of that privilege without responsability part from equality.


I think I was imagining someone riding atop their moral high horse. Punching down to keep the aspiring social climber in their place. Maybe punching laterally would be a better description, but it could be just semantics. My overall point is that it's often easier to punch at your peers to maintain some semblance of potency, than it is to confront who is actually oppressing you and who has actually disenfranchised you.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Dezir said:


> From other men. What do you mean? Do you mean a woman reacting like that to a man if she was accidently or intentionally poured coffe on by a man? No, I just don't think so.
> 
> I see your point, that all that violence that is coming towards men does come from men. And I agree. But it doesn't change my initial point, if anything sort of confirms it, that men treat women with gloves.
> 
> ...


I view your stereotypes and blaming women for being hit as sexist and just plain wrong. The mental gymnastics to get to where a woman has responsibility for being hit by just making the choice of being with a man who turns out to be abusive. It seems as if you're saying some men are born bad and that it's evident that they are that way and anyone who interacts with them are responsible for their actions. A man who has money marries a woman who only wants their money is also not to blame for their wife's intent. It should be said though, that intent to procure advantage in a marriage isn't the fecking same as being abused. Being abused by someone is not your fault. So just because you say you believe people are responsible for everything that happens to them doesn't make it correct. It is objectively incorrect. If you were to say that you believe in the ultimate responsibility of Sartrian thought it still isn't you who is doing the hitting when you are experiencing DV. How you got there is by using the idea that "she asked for it". There isn't a way around it. She isn't doing the hitting, she is being hit. She is objectively not the person responsible for being hit. 

The use of violence in a casual manner in the way that you talk about interactions with other men; it seems that you are OK with violence. That violence amongst men is OK somehow and that they are naturally violent so they curb tendencies around women. How is OK to be violent in the first place when there are laws prohibiting it? 

When you are not using anything to support your claims and saying up is down and down is up you are using your own thoughts and experiences, in fact, you say "in my experience" a few times to explain a situation. Are the people who read your thoughts (that do not include facts and figures) supposed to think that you are automatically the arbiter of truth in all of the situations or do you think they will look at facts and figures to glean more of the truth? My "interpretation" of articles and studies isn't my interpretation of them, they are the interpretation of people who SPECIALISE in these areas and I am using them in the discussion. That is the difference. 

Bad guys aren't hot and nice guys aren't hot either. They are terms that men use to soothe themselves when they are rejected as seen on here more times than I care to count. You will see on here when talking about what women like in threads on here that they are extremely varied and they don't state as a want "bad guys" or "nice guys".

For the record, I was in an abusive relationship. I was never hit or abused until I was 3 months pregnant. When I was no longer pregnant I hit him back and sent him to the hospital, so maybe I was using gloves on him the entire time or maybe he was just trying to get me to make me subordinate to him. He underestimated that. He used to pick me up and throw me around the room and say he never hit me (because technically he wasn't) but the walls and the furniture hit me when I landed. 

I haven't used my experience in this discussion and according to you maybe I acted like an "entitled Karen" to get hit or maybe it's my fault somehow that he changed when I was pregnant and never improved in behaviour but got worse and worse. To me, he got worse because he was trying to control me and he couldn't. When he realised he couldn't hit me anymore because I would fight back he tried other ways to control me, with money, emotional abuse, and using the children as bait. So when you say that women are to blame for their choices and you don't have experience it just tells me that you don't understand what happens, how it happens and what studies back up. You aren't using reasoning. You are just arguing to say that feminists are to blame, and you don't even understand what feminism is. 

If you treat feminism like it's a bad thing that doesn't help both men and women then you don't understand what it is just like you don't understand how sociology is used to get a broader perspective. Feminism helps men to get back to relationships after they have abused their spouses, it helps with counseling and finding better ways to negotiate without hitting, it's a therapy applied specifically towards gendered violence. Feminism gives us drop-off points so abuse can be curtailed when sharing parenting arrangements are made. Feminism gave women choices when it came to losing their kids (it used to be a default that children automatically went to the father now, either parent can obtain custody and they can share parenting).


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Dezir said:


> Plenty of men have no issues picking on another man below their "weight class". In fact, sometimes they pick on other men exactly because they are below their "weight class".


Is that a benefit, or a problem?



Dezir said:


> Interesting, I've heard once or twice women talking about how wamen are more verbally abusive to each other in the workplace than they are with men, but as far as personal experience goes that is impossible for me as a man, can you tell me more?


I've seen incidents where women will berate female colleagues as a dominance thing, where they don't take that attitude with male colleagues. Increased aggression as a dominance behavior is something women do, too. A woman I know had the experience where her older, female supervisor would tell her she was an idiot and such in front of clients, and she would just take it because she didn't want to lose her job. Finally, she had enough and told the woman off. She was fired, and gladly left.



Dezir said:


> What about all-female miner work camps? I don't see nearly as much feminism momentum moving towards female miners or lumberjacks (or rather an issue that there aren't 50% women miners, 50% male miners) as I see for CEOs, managers or politicians.
> 
> Not that feminists are against women entering these jobs, but rather that they don't advocate for 50% women - 50% men there like they do for the jobs they like.


No man "wants" to be coal miner, either, just like a lot of women don't "want" to be domestic workers like low-paid cleaning ladies but do it because that is what they can get. I agree with you in that society can force men into jobs that are unpleasant and difficult and bad for their health, but that does happen with women, as well - even if they might be different jobs. Unless you also say that 50% of domestic workers and other low-paid pink-collar jobs should be taken by men, for "equality" sake.

I don't think you'd sell anyone on "let's all suffer more," lol.



Dezir said:


> Men can be manipulative, or that women aren't born manipulative, women can be aggressive, or men aren't always aggressive. It's just that on average, women are more manipulative and men more aggressive. I agree that there's a lot of shades of grey, but I was talking about generalities here.


I could ask you what percentage of women must be "more manipulative" for you to generalize. 50%? What if 49% of women are manipulative? Can you still say it is a generality? 30%? It just seems so arbitrary.



Dezir said:


> It's market economy. Nothing on the market is on purpose, it just happens. But I guarantee that there's a bunch of managers looking at the salaries and thinking "what can we do to minimise the salaries?" I know that because I've been there in those rooms. Probably every big company has something like that. If they can make money out of it, they will.


Yet, how would their reputation suffer if they only hired women because they could pay them less? How about their reputation as a business in light of the fact that women are often viewed as less competent, especially in leadership roles? (As referenced several times.) There are many other considerations that go into hiring decisions, and if you've been in those rooms you should know that. That is why I asked what it is that they _can't _get away with.



Dezir said:


> I don't mean every reason why you viewed his post as sexist, I mean every reason (well, some reason, you don't have to list them all) why you viewed his post as wrong. A comment can be sexist but right like saying "women are physically weaker than men", it's sexist? yeah, it's wrong? no.


I really don't want to address Lonewaer's post anymore, so please stop asking. He can't even speak for himself on this thread (I think), so I don't want to keep talking about him.

It is not sexist to say a man is physically stronger in many cases. That is just a fact you can verify. It is also not sexist to say something like, "females have ovaries while males have testes" as a general fact (with some exceptions and grey areas with intersex and trans folks). But it becomes a slippery slope when you shoehorn certain "traits" into "fact" territory based on specious evidence, and those "facts" so happen to support an agenda that disparages a group of people. Like women being "naturally manipulative" and therefore easy to make a case that they are suspicious, sneaky, and underhanded. Is the issue with that really very hard to see?



Dezir said:


> There is something _wrong _with a feminine-looking man that is sucks for them to be this way, they get negative feedback from life because of this, rejection, outcasting, etc; and then they become either angry at the world or double down in their simp ways. Either way, both cases only them stand to lose. Well, not only them, sometimes one may go full Elliot Rogers and the whole world will have to suffer because of them.


I don't think the solution is to go back to some old fantasy about "what it means to be a man" or whatever and encourage boys to be ashamed of what this fantasy deems as "too girly." I think we need to move forward about it, and stop being so judgmental if folks don't fit into some binary mold. Jumping on a bandwagon to cast out men who don't fit a certain mold isn't helping us to stop the Elliot Rogers, if that even has anything to do with his motivations.



Dezir said:


> It's the men's fault for treating them this way? yeah, but they get mainly rejection from women. I don't think any of them would have problems if men would hate them but women love them, but they don't.
> 
> Sure, they may love them "as a friend", but that's like your boss not giving you salary because he loves you as a friend. But then the argument goes "they are not entitled to sex", yes, they aren't, but they want it, and the way they behave, this feminine-looking way, isn't giving them any sex, so they hate it, and get mad at it, and then at the world.
> 
> You want sex? convince women to want to have sex with you, how? by not being a feminine-looking man.


Again, there is a lot of grey area. I'm not saying women can't contribute to sexism (even provided an example where one did), so I'm not sure why this is against any of the points I've made.



Dezir said:


> So I agree that "they are not entitled to sex" in the same way you are not entitled to have a job, you only have a job because you made all the right moves, you are efficient, capable, offer a good service that your boss wants and so he hired you and gives you salary in return for your services, you weren't entitled to a job but got a job because your boss wanted you, in their case, no women want them because they didn't make the right moves.


Under that thinking, _no one_ is entitled to a job _or_ sex. It doesn't matter what gender.



Dezir said:


> I'm objecting because I don't know which part from that train of thought in my OP you find incorrect, the bulletpoints, and why. I did not see it debunked or addressed. For example "You don't look as cool as you want to do and repress that part of yourself, so repressed inferiority complex towards other men", didn't see any of your comments attempting to explain why this is false, maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen it.


I did attempt to explain it, but I don't know if it is worth it to go back and hash it out. We have so many trains of thought going, lol. I don't mean to avoid it or not admit I might be wrong (because maybe I was), but I think we're having the same conversation just in a more productive way, already.



Dezir said:


> No, I argue that it's lack of masculinity that's messed up. And feminists trying to repress that masculinity (despite being something that they themselves want).


How are they repressing it if they want it, like you explain above with choosing more masculine partners?



Dezir said:


> Well yes -> It is up to a woman to choose a good partner, not a man to be a good partner.
> Just like -> It is up to a man to choose a good partner, not a woman to be a good partner.
> 
> I agree, common responsability.
> ...


I understand what you're getting at here about how the only person you can control is yourself, but what bugs me is that if a woman gets into an abusive relationship and you say she shouldn't have done that, it makes it easier for the other 9 men (and the abusive man) to excuse the abusive behavior as acceptable. "She let me do it/didn't protest, so it must be okay." Do you see how that is troubling? That "you only control yourself" works both ways. The man who is being abusive is in control of himself, and _choosing _to be abusive, as well. The men who are standing by and saying, "that's not my fault" are _choosing _to enable him. So, it is at once "you can only control yourself" and "everyone is responsible", as paradoxical as that might sound.

Real-talk: I'm not sure how well you understand abusive relationships. I admit I don't understand them very well, either. Like I said, I grew up with a man who was abusive towards my mother and I could not for the life of me understand why she was with him. Yet, there are dynamics that make it difficult to say it is just a matter of choice, like beth pointed out. Usually there is a history there that makes someone more vulnerable to abusive situations, and people who are abusive_ take advantage of that. _Even in that story you told about the girl in the bar gave that impression. There are power plays that trap the person being abused, which are largely hidden or overlooked, and those traps need to be addressed as something more significant than a woman simply _liking abusive partners_, or something.

I don't know how much I want to get into that topic, though. It is pretty triggering for a lot of people who have been in abusive situations, and I think we should respect that.



Dezir said:


> The point in drawing those lines is to offer a general perspective, they won't be true all the time to everyone everywhere.
> 
> It's like saying "men like sports". I don't (lol, going back to the feminine traits part) that doesn't mean saying "men like sports" is incorrect. Even if you were to put me next to a woman who like sports. That still doesn't mean that "men like sports" is incorrect, because on average men like sports far more than women.


So, again... the percentages. How many men must like sports for "men like sports" to be true? Why is this an important distinction to make, as opposed to "many people like sports?" What do you gain with the divisions?



Dezir said:


> The group being discriminated against in this case being everyone who is not an employer.


Not all employees are treated equally on the basis of their identities, so it seems like you're just side-stepping that rather than confronting it, where confronting_ that problem _is what others are trying to do.



Dezir said:


> Employees have far more power than employers, it's in-fighting that kills them. In fighting like this gender war that happens these days with employers and corporations love. Because it keeps them busy. They won't demand better wages if they are at each other's throats. Just give them a better issue to divide people.


The point of gender pay gap awareness is to demand better wages. How is any advocacy for more transparency in pay benefiting corporations that want to pay employees less?



Dezir said:


> So women have more job satisfaction, I agree with that, but at the same time, women can be predominantly found in pink-collar jobs, as opposed to the hustle jobs Jordan Peterson was talking about, so I don't see those statistics contradicting that.
> 
> They often report high levels of job satisfaction, but they are often found in pink-collar jobs.
> 
> ...


They don't contradict that part. What is missing in his argument is any evidence for his stated reason they leave jobs that require a lot of time investment and "hustling" as compared to men. He said it was because they'd rather be moms and provides no data/support for that assertion except some appeal to "common sense" and "cuz obviously women want babies more," as if men don't want children.* 

For an alternative explanation, perhaps women leave the hustle culture because they get far less benefit and social/cultural support for it than men do. Like Peterson said, they're also expected to take care of a household... but instead of pointing to this as a barrier for ambitious women, he disregards it and basically says in so many words, "this is why it's better they just quit (and get back in the kitchen or be a nice secretary instead, TM.)" 

In addition, to think the only reason women would leave high-level jobs is "women aren't as ambitious" ignores the privileges and incentives men have for those positions.

Men historically have not faced the decision to either have children or have a career. They expect to merrily have both, and that is not true for women entering demanding careers. For women, it is often "pick one" or "have a stupidly stressful life where you're judged constantly for trying to juggle both." If women are being forced out of the game, you can't say they don't want to play. When men have to do the lion's share of childcare and household duties on top of maintain a high-performing career, then we'll talk about career ambition with a level playing field.

*When Men Want Kids — and Women Aren’t So Sure (thecut.com)


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

When your interlocutor is at the level of victim blaming that's a sign your time would be better spent doing anything else.
Pretty sure you know of a freshly painted wall or two that could use supervision.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Squirt said:


> I've seen incidents where women will berate female colleagues as a dominance thing, where they don't take that attitude with male colleagues. Increased aggression as a dominance behavior is something women do, too. A woman I know had the experience where her older, female supervisor would tell her she was an idiot and such in front of clients, and she would just take it because she didn't want to lose her job. Finally, she had enough and told the woman off. She was fired, and gladly left.


I have also been talked down to by older female colleagues and even screamed at lol. I was told to, again, not take things personally, and to consider that different personality types have different motivations. A man would never talk to me like that at work, I think. Also those women would never talk to a man at work like that either. 

It's kind of interesting that you bring up the dynamic of the types of working environments that are disproportionately employing one gender over the other. I think you can see more aggression there than in co-ed spaces sometimes. This is part of what I was questioning/getting at in my post about Why is the Field of Nursing So Toxic?




Squirt said:


> They don't contradict that part. What is missing in his argument is any evidence for his stated reason they leave jobs that require a lot of time investment and "hustling" as compared to men. He said it was because they'd rather be moms and provides no data/support for that assertion except some appeal to "common sense" and "cuz obviously women want babies more," as if men don't want children.*
> 
> For an alternative explanation, perhaps women leave the hustle culture because they get far less benefit and social/cultural support for it than men do. Like Peterson said, they're also expected to take care of a household... but instead of pointing to this as a barrier for ambitious women, he disregards it and basically says in so many words, "this is why it's better they just quit (and get back in the kitchen or be a nice secretary instead, TM.)"
> 
> ...


Now Jordan Peterson is an interesting man. He lets me down when he speaks about women, though. Half the time he's saying, "Don't ask me about women. I know about men because I'm a man." As someone else, maybe you Squirt, pointed out, it's like, "Bro, you're a clinical psychologist. You should be able to answer some basic questions about the opposite sex with some degree of conviction."

The other half of the time he's parroting the same talking points over and over. I mean, maybe it's not his fault, because his content is so widely distributed that you end up hearing the same stuff over. But the arguments that he makes about high-earning women wanting to leave the workplace, as far as I know, are mostly based on his observations of really high-earning women, like lawyers, on a track to make the coveted position of partner. Like, how many women (or men for that matter) could even identify with such a lifestyle? You would definitely need to consider reasons why that may be other than they are lazier or not as ambitious as men. Differing priorities I can accept. Inherently lazier, I cannot lol. Of course high-earning women are usually married to high or higher-earning men. Unless they intend for their kids to be raised entirely by the nanny and household staff, one of the spouses will consider leaving or reducing hours at work.

Furthermore Jordan Peterson has argued that young girls who are not considering motherhood by the age of 24 or 25 are not properly oriented psychologically speaking. As if they are mentally ill lol. I swear the man is not of this world. No need to rely on psychology to interpret what common sense would readily explain. Does the average 24 year old woman earn enough money, even with a partner, to own a home and start a family? Does the average 24 year old man earn enough to support an entire family on his income alone? But the incels absolutely love this reasoning of his, because it provides some validation as to why the young women are not choosing them as partners. "Oh she's mentally unwell! That makes sense."


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Necrofantasia said:


> When your interlocutor is at the level of victim blaming that's a sign your time would be better spent doing anything else.
> Pretty sure you know of a freshly painted wall or two that could use supervision.


I want to see all of your posts as fortune cookie sayings.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

OrchidSugar said:


> I have also been talked down to by older female colleagues and even screamed at lol. I was told to, again, not take things personally, and to consider that different personality types have different motivations. A man would never talk to me like that at work, I think. Also those women would never talk to a man at work like that either.
> 
> It's kind of interesting that you bring up the dynamic of the types of working environments that are disproportionately employing one gender over the other. I think you can see more aggression there than in co-ed spaces sometimes. This is part of what I was questioning/getting at in my post about Why is the Field of Nursing So Toxic?
> 
> ...


Jordan Peterson should never be used as an expert in any form when it comes to talking about psychology....and probably the best indicator of how much thought has been put into an answer if he is given as evidence of an argument. I think about the only people who could ever see him in a professional sense are young males. People who are questioning their gender identity would come out more traumatised and women are out of the question as well. I wonder if he specialises in male-only clients. Psychologists are supposed to abide by the "do no harm" tenet. He can tell young men to "clean their rooms" but when it comes to any training in his chosen profession he really takes the dumb road - which is dangerous and unethical. He is as basic as your average DV derp who is trying to enforce roles. This doesn't do young men any good in the long run either. They become hateful and disillusioned that the world isn't 100 years ago. If he was in any of my professors' lectures (all male) he would have been censured and barred from entering the next phase after honours for his skewed ideas about women.

I don't fully get why people think he is brilliant. It might have something to do with him being able to take the lowest common denominator idea and make it seem like it's academic and fresh.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Jordan is a shoulder to cry on for men who never get to complain about their struggles, I think that’s a good thing. The whole gender role/age thing is toxic though, it really undermines women being independent thinkers.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

intranst said:


> Jordan is a shoulder to cry on for men who never get to complain about their struggles, I think that’s a good thing. The whole gender role/age thing is toxic though, it really undermines women being independent thinkers.


That would be sound if it weren't him telling them it's OK to become the mascot of masculine shitfuckery. Telling anyone about their traditional gender roles isn't workable nowadays. It wasn't even workable 100 years ago because there were suffragettes struggling to get their voices heard.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

beth x said:


> Jordan Peterson should never be used as an expert in any form when it comes to talking about psychology....and probably the best indicator of how much thought has been put into an answer if he is given as evidence of an argument. I think about the only people who could ever see him in a professional sense are young males. People who are questioning their gender identity would come out more traumatised and women are out of the question as well. I wonder if he specialises in male-only clients. Psychologists are supposed to abide by the "do no harm" tenet. He can tell young men to "clean their rooms" but when it comes to any training in his chosen profession he really takes the dumb road - which is dangerous and unethical. He is as basic as your average DV derp who is trying to enforce roles. This doesn't do young men any good in the long run either. They become hateful and disillusioned that the world isn't 100 years ago. If he was in any of my professors' lectures (all male) he would have been censured and barred from entering the next phase after honours for his skewed ideas about women.
> 
> I don't fully get why people think he is brilliant. It might have something to do with him being able to take the lowest common denominator idea and make it seem like it's academic and fresh.


beth x with the sizzling hot critique lol!



intranst said:


> Jordan is a shoulder to cry on for men who never get to complain about their struggles, I think that’s a good thing. The whole gender role/age thing is toxic though, it really undermines women being independent thinkers.


I agree. He does create a space for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to. I also think that's important. It just really annoys me that he seems to lack the self awareness about how some of his ideas fit into a larger, sometimes insidious narrative.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

OrchidSugar said:


> beth x with the sizzling hot critique lol!
> 
> 
> I agree. He does create a space for people who otherwise wouldn't be able to. I also think that's important. It just really annoys me that he seems to lack the self awareness about how some of his ideas fit into a larger, sometimes insidious narrative.


I don’t think he’s unaware of it, but maybe the young guys who idolize him are not. It is like he’s becoming a cult leader.



> He continued, "Invite the young men back, say, literally, to those young men, 'You are welcome here. If no one else wants what you have to offer, we do. We want to call you to the highest purpose of your life. We want your time and energy and effort and your will and your goodwill. We want to work with you to make things better, to produce life more abundant for you, and for your wife and children and for your community, and your country, and the world.'"







__





Loading…






www1.cbn.com





Now that’s manipulative.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Squirt said:


> I don’t think he’s unaware of it, but maybe the young guys who idolize him are not. It is like he’s becoming a cult leader.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jesus..


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Squirt said:


> I don’t think he’s unaware of it, but maybe the young guys who idolize him are not. It is like he’s becoming a cult leader.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was kind of scary. I enjoyed many of his philosophy lectures, but at times like this it looks like he is losing the plot.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

Bad look for NFJs lol


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Squirt said:


> I don’t think he’s unaware of it, but maybe the young guys who idolize him are not. It is like he’s becoming a cult leader.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then there is this. 





__





Loading…






www.nytimes.com






It does say that he gave up practicing though. So there's that. Still, creating a sausage factory of radicalised clean freaks just kinda rattles.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Squirt said:


> I don’t think he’s unaware of it, but maybe the young guys who idolize him are not. It is like he’s becoming a cult leader.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I watched it, and I think I understand his message and why he said it. I don't agree with him, but I don't think it was manipulative.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

I would love to see Jordan Peterson in a therapy session to get to the root of his underlying anger issues and gender dysmorphia. No more podcast visits and debates. Therapy. I would start paying money and subscribing to Daily Wire if they would put him in therapy for 12 sessions to start.


----------



## intranst (Jul 13, 2021)

OrchidSugar said:


> I would love to see Jordan Peterson in a therapy session to get to the root of his underlying anger issues and gender dysmorphia. No more podcast visits and debates. Therapy. I would start paying money and subscribing to Daily Wire if they would put him in therapy for 12 sessions to start.


It’s probably just a bad type match, what type is his wife? I apologize for the mild trolling.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

OrchidSugar said:


> I would love to see Jordan Peterson in a therapy session to get to the root of his underlying anger issues and gender dysmorphia. No more podcast visits and debates. Therapy. I would start paying money and subscribing to Daily Wire if they would put him in therapy for 12 sessions to start.


I would love to see him STFU. My hot take is that he got dismayed when he was told he wasn't in control of all the shit. I'll teach you he said. I'm gonna make my sausages elsewhere and they will be political and clean goddamnit!


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

intranst said:


> It’s probably just a bad type match, what type is his wife? I apologize for the mild trolling.


I have no clue about his wife and what her MBTI could be. He barely lets her speak during the clips I’ve seen. One result on Google said ENFP. I’m incredibly surprised by that.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

beth x said:


> I would love to see him STFU. My hot take is that he got dismayed when he was told he wasn't in control of all the shit. I'll teach you he said. I'm gonna make my sausages elsewhere and they will be political and clean goddamnit!


I couldn’t see that NY times article you posted. They said I didn’t have any free articles left. Even though I’m pretty sure they haven’t shown me a free article in well over a year 🤔


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

@OrchidSugar

The NY Times article.

*Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy*
He says there’s a crisis in masculinity. Why won’t women — all these wives and witches — just behave?











Credit...Mark Sommerfeld for The New York Times

SectionsSKIP TO CONTENTSKIP TO SITE INDEX

*Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy*
He says there’s a crisis in masculinity. Why won’t women — all these wives and witches — just behave?
Credit...Mark Sommerfeld for The New York Times

Give this article




1.5K

By Nellie Bowles

May 18, 2018
TORONTO — Jordan Peterson fills huge lecture halls and tells his audiences there’s no shame in looking backward to a model of how the world should be arranged. Look back to the 1950s, he says — and back even further. He tells his audiences that they are smart. He is bringing them knowledge, yes, but it is knowledge that they already know and feel in their bones. He casts this as ancient wisdom, delivered through religious allegories and fairy tales which contain truth, he says, that modern society has forgotten.
Most of his ideas stem from a gnawing anxiety around gender. “The masculine spirit is under assault,” he told me. “It’s obvious.”
In Mr. Peterson’s world, order is masculine. Chaos is feminine. And if an overdose of femininity is our new poison, Mr. Peterson knows the cure. Hence his new book’s subtitle: “An Antidote to Chaos.”
“We have to rediscover the eternal values and then live them out,” he says.
Mr. Peterson, 55, a University of Toronto psychology professor turned YouTube philosopher turned mystical father figure, has emerged as an influential thought leader. The messages he delivers range from hoary self-help empowerment talk (clean your room, stand up straight) to the more retrograde and political (a society run as a patriarchy makes sense and stems mostly from men’s competence; the notion of white privilege is a farce). He is the stately looking, pedigreed voice for a group of culture warriors who are working diligently to undermine mainstream and liberal efforts to promote equality.

He is also very successful. His book, “12 Rules for Life,” which was published in January, has sold more than 1.1 million copies. Thanks to his YouTube channel, he makes more than $80,000 a month just on donations. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken his online personality tests and self-improvement writing exercises. The media covers him relentlessly.

Image








Security at Mr. Peterson's "12 Rules For Life" tour event. Credit...Mark Sommerfeld for The New York Times


For two days in May, Mr. Peterson gives me a view of his life. He shows me his home, lets me listen in on business calls and a Skype session with a fan, and follow him backstage during a speaking engagement at the Queen Elizabeth Theater. He does not smile. He has a weathered, gaunt face and big furrowed eyebrows. He has written about dogs being closest in behavior to humans, but there is something extremely feline about him. He always wears a suit. “I am a very serious person,” he often says.
Wherever he goes, he speaks in sermons about the inevitability of who we must be. “You know you can say, ‘Well isn’t it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine’ — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn’t matter because that is how it’s represented. It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can’t change it. It’s not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn’t be human anymore. They’d be something else. They’d be transhuman or something. We wouldn’t be able to talk to these new creatures.”
*Why Men Murder*
Mr. Peterson’s home is a carefully curated house of horror. He has filled it with a sprawl of art that covers the walls from floor to ceiling. Most of it is communist propaganda from the Soviet Union (execution scenes, soldiers looking noble) — a constant reminder, he says, of atrocities and oppression. He wants to feel their imprisonment, though he lives here on a quiet residential street in Toronto and is quite free.


“Marxism is resurgent,” Mr. Peterson says, looking ashen and stricken.
I say it seems unnecessarily stressful to live like this. He tells me life is stressful.
He tucks his legs under him as he talks, curled in a dark leather seat. He has been padding around softly in socks. He looks down while he talks and makes fleeting, suspicious eye contact.
He quit his private practice last year and is on an early sabbatical from the University of Toronto. He dragged the school into controversy in 2016 by opposing a Canadian bill that he believed would compel him to use a student’s preferred pronouns.
“I am not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I detest, and that’s that,” he said during a debate at the University of Toronto.
Mr. Peterson, who grew up in Fairview, Canada, a small town in northern Alberta, spent his career teaching psychology at Harvard and then at the University of Toronto, all while running a clinical practice.
The lesson most patients need to hear, he says, is “grow the hell up, accept some responsibility, live an honorable life.”

“We just haven’t talked about that in any compelling way in three generations,” he says. “Probably since the beginning of the ’60s.”
Why did he decide to engage in politics at all? He says a couple years ago he had three clients in his private practice “pushed out of a state of mental health by left-wing bullies in their workplace.” I ask for an example, and he sighs.
He says one patient had to be part of a long email chain over whether the term “flip chart” could be used in the workplace, since the word “flip” is a pejorative for Filipino.
“She had a radical-left boss who was really concerned with equality and equality of outcome and all these things and diversity and inclusivity and all these buzzwords and she was subjected to — she sent me the email chain, 30 emails about whether or not the word flip chart was acceptable,” Mr. Peterson says.

Image










So he was radicalized, he says, because the “radical left” wants to eliminate hierarchies, which he says are the natural order of the world. In his book he illustrates this idea with the social behavior of lobsters. He chose lobsters because they have hierarchies and are a very ancient species, and are also invertebrates with serotonin. This lobster hierarchy has become a rallying cry for his fans; they put images of the crustacean on T-shirts and mugs.

The left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,” he said.
Mr. Peterson illustrates his arguments with copious references to ancient myths — bringing up stories of witches, biblical allegories and ancient traditions. I ask why these old stories should guide us today.
“It makes sense that a witch lives in a swamp. Yeah,” he says. “Why?”
It’s a hard one.
“Right. That’s right. You don’t know. It’s because those things hang together at a very deep level. Right. Yeah. And it makes sense that an old king lives in a desiccated tower.”
But witches don’t exist, and they don’t live in swamps, I say.
“Yeah, they do. They do exist. They just don’t exist the way you think they exist. They certainly exist. You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, ‘Well, there’s no such thing as witches.’ Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn’t what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can’t help but fall into these categories. There’s no escape from them.”
Recently, a young man named Alek Minassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his van. Ten were killed, and he has been charged with first-degree murder for their deaths, and with attempted murder for 16 people who were injured. Mr. Minassian declared himself to be part of a misogynist group whose members call themselves incels. The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships.
Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.
“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”
I laugh, because it is absurd.
“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”
But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.
He agrees that this is inconsistent. But preventing hordes of single men from violence, he believes, is necessary for the stability of society. Enforced monogamy helps neutralize that.

In situations where there is too much mate choice, “a small percentage of the guys have hyper-access to women, and so they don’t form relationships with women,” he said. “And the women hate that.”
*Helping Men Out, One at a Time*

Image








Mr. Peterson, John O'Connell and Dave Rubin backstage at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre in Toronto.Credit...Mark Sommerfeld for The New York Times


Mr. Peterson is a celebrity in the men’s rights community, a loose collection of activists who feel men have been subjugated or betrayed by social progress. Some of these supporters pay $200 a month for a 45-minute Skype conversation with Mr. Peterson to discuss their problems. (Mr. Peterson says this service has since been discontinued.)
Before he leads me to his office to sit in on one of these appointments, Mr. Peterson shows me around the third floor of his home, which is filled with carvings made by Charles Joseph, a Kwakwaka'wakw artist.
Over his bed is a painting celebrating electrification in the Soviet Union. On the wall across from it is a hyper-realistic painting of two nude women with swords. His bedspread is familiar: It’s the same image as his Twitter avatar, a dark geometric design based on a piece of art he made out of foam core in 1985 that he called “The Meaning of Music.” He says it’s “an attempt to portray in image what music means.” He has had it made into a rug as well.
Mr. Peterson’s office has objects scattered and strewn throughout: There is a hat from a gulag, some steampunk masks he thought were cool, stacks of papers and cords, and a Kermit puppet his sister sent him because his fans joke that his voice, high and hoarse, sounds like the Muppet. Mr. Peterson stresses the importance of cleanliness, but honestly his office is a mess.

For the Skype call, he wears a sharp blazer and button-down, but he sits shoeless and cross-legged. He knows where the frame cuts off.
The caller, Trevor Alexander Nestor, is a young white man: bearded, unemployed, at a friend’s house. He later posted the audio on his own Patreon.
“I’m really hoping that somebody is going to recognize my talent,” Mr. Nestor says.
Mr. Nestor says he recently wrote a paper on how testosterone levels and sperm count are dropping. He argues sociocultural transformations are probably making men less virile, and Mr. Peterson nods along.
At one point in the discussion, Mr. Peterson, who had been relatively quiet, becomes heated on the topic of women who find marriage oppressive.
“So I don’t know who these people think marriages are oppressing,” he says. “I read Betty Friedan’s book because I was very curious about it, and it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake, you — you — ”
Mr. Nestor says he was an engineering student at the University of California, Berkeley, but decided to transfer after feeling overcome by the liberal dogma when he took theater classes for his humanities requirement.

“They were teaching in classrooms things like Martin Luther King Jr. would have supported violent rebellion, and marriage is an institution that is designed to control the sexuality of women,” he says.
Mr. Peterson has a verbal tic where he makes a sound like _m-hmm_, a guttural forceful noise to signify agreement barked in two distinct beats; his mouth stays closed.
“I’ve talked to a few young women, and they have told me they do wish that they could be housewives,” Mr. Nestor says. “But what they’ve said to me is that they feel as though if they were to pursue that, other people would look down on them.”
“I’ve had lots of women tell me that,” Mr. Peterson says. “Women will never admit that publicly.” Women are likely to prioritize their children over their work, he says, especially “conscientious and agreeable women.”
When Mr. Peterson talks about good women — the sort a man would want to marry — he often uses these words: conscientious and agreeable.
Mr. Nestor feels anxious, and Mr. Peterson says he should. “My primary focus has been to not be homeless,” Mr. Nestor says.

“You don’t have a future and you don’t have a job and no bloody wonder you’re anxious,” Mr. Peterson says. “That just means you’re sane.”
*Male Performance*

Image








Lined up for the book tour.Credit...Mark Sommerfeld for The New York Times


Jacob Logan, 18, from Alliston, Ontario, was first in line for Mr. Peterson’s talk on Thursday, May 3 at the Queen Elizabeth Theater. He had arrived 12 hours early, wearing a shirt with lobsters stacked upon each other. He also had 100 name tags to hand out on which he had scrawled the name “Bucko.” It’s a nickname Mr. Peterson sometimes uses for his fans.
“Whenever I listen to him, it’s like he’s telling me something I already knew,” Mr. Logan says. “Learning is remembering.”
When Mr. Peterson comes down the line shaking hands, the crowd cheers in a way that is not normal for a book tour. He is wearing a new three-piece suit, shiny and brown with wide lapels with a decorative silver flourish.
It is evocative of imagery from a hundred years ago. That’s the point. His speech too is from another era — stilted, with old-timey phrases, a hypnotic rhythm. It’s a vocal tactic he came to only recently. Videos from a few years ago have him speaking and dressing in a more modern way.

I ask him about the retro clothes and phrases. He calls it his prairie populism.
“That’s what happens when you rescue your father from the belly of the whale,” he says. “You rediscover your tradition.”
Inside among the crowd was Sue Bone, 66, a retired flight attendant from Halifax.
Ms. Bone loved her flight attendant job until she began to find it dehumanizing and corporate. Her friend told her the airlines were now run by “angry gay queens,” she says. She found Mr. Peterson. She feels he understands the danger of these strange new social forces.
“He’s waking us up in the West,” she says.
*The People Who Have Found Their Leader*

Image








The audience during Mr. Peterson's talk. Credit...Mark Sommerfeld for The New York Times


“You’re a divine locus of consciousness,” Mr. Peterson tells the crowd of 1,200 or so people.
He looks down as he walks. He paces. He pleads — he often sounds frustrated, like you’ve just said something absurd and he’s trying to correct you without raising his voice. He speaks for over an hour without any notes. He runs his hands over his face when it’s all too much. He cries often.
“We love you!” a woman screams from the back of the house.
Those with V.I.P. tickets get to shake his hand and take a picture. Many tell him something as they stand, waiting for the flash: “You made me have a religious experience”; “we got back in our faith because of you”; “this is another wedding you can take credit for.”
Mr. Peterson’s response is often, “How’s that working out for you?”
Around midnight, there is still a group outside, lingering and talking.

Lion Arar, 22, a theater student in Montreal, says Mr. Peterson’s discussion of gender brought him back to religion.
“It made sense in a primordial way when he breaks down Adam and Eve, the snake and chaos,” Mr. Arar says. “Eve made Adam self-conscious. Women make men self-conscious because they’re the ultimate judge. I was like, ‘Wow this is really true.’”
The changes in his life include starting to clean his room. “My mom’s been nagging me for years, but I’ve never done it until Dr. Peterson,” he says.
“You organize one shelf, you do that, just incremental challenges,” he says. “That makes you realize, ‘O.K., this is how I grow up.’”
Andrew McVicar, 45, a waiter, says it was good to hear someone finally talk about how hierarchies were O.K. He says current politics are pushing for everyone to be the same, promoting women and minorities into unearned positions.

“It’s forced diversity, it’s saying you must have X percent of A-B-C,” he says. “How about, look at yourself?”

Image








Without notes.Credit...Mark Sommerfeld for The New York Times


Jeffrey Rouillard, 21, from Montreal and also studying theater, says he was drawn to Mr. Peterson after watching a prominent female journalist grill him.
“How many times have I been in a situation where I had been set up to be the bad guy?” Mr. Rouillard asks. “Listening to Dr. Peterson, I got a grasp of myself. It’s things I already knew, but now I know how to process the thought.”
Agreeing, Mr. Arar gave off the same guttural _m-hmm_ that Mr. Peterson does.
*The Horror of Women*
To Naureen Shameem, who works at the Association for Women’s Rights in Development, which is based in Canada, Mr. Peterson’s philosophies are part of a bigger global backlash to gender equality progress.
“It’s an old story, really,” she said. “In a lot of nationalistic projects, women’s bodies and sexualities become important sites of focus and control.”
“Jordan’s exposed something that’s been festering for a long time,” says Justin Trottier, 35, the co-founder of the men’s rights organizations Canadian Association for Equality and Canadian Centre for Men and Families. “Jordan’s forced people to pay attention.”

Mr. Trottier made headlines when his group called the anti-manspreading subway initiatives sexist. Their musty space hosts events in which men discuss the prejudices they perceive against them. One of their group’s main goals is “waking the police up” to female-perpetrated domestic violence, Mr. Trottier says.
Now, “there’s more acceptance of what we’re trying to do,” he says.

Image








The V.I.P. meet and greet. Credit...Mark Sommerfeld for The New York Times


There are now regular Jordan Peterson discussion groups. The one in Toronto meets once a week at a restaurant called Hemingway’s and is run by Chris Shepherd, who used to be a professional pickup artist who coached men on how to get laid fast at a club but is now a dating coach.
Mr. Shepherd first encountered Mr. Peterson in a viral video of the professor getting yelled at by campus activists. Watching the stoic professor take on righteous liberal anger touched Mr. Shepherd.
“Campus censorship has been a problem when I was at university too,” he says at Hemingway’s one recent afternoon.
I ask for an example.
“One law professor said something like, ‘You young ladies should get married and start families,’ and he got fired,” Mr. Shepherd says. “The message was just you’ll have a happier life if you get married instead of focusing on your career.”
“Certainly not a firing offense,” he says. Except, for now, it is.
*A correction was made on*
May 18, 2018
:
An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a nonprofit organization. It is the Canadian Association for Equality, not Equality Canada.

Nellie Bowles covers tech and internet culture from San Francisco for The New York Times. Before joining The Times, she was a correspondent for “VICE News Tonight.” She has written for California Sunday, Recode, The Guardian, and the San Francisco Chronicle.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

OrchidSugar said:


> I have no clue about his wife and what her MBTI could be. He barely lets her speak during the clips I’ve seen. One result on Google said ENFP. I’m incredibly surprised by that.


Shes some ETJ based on what JP has said about her, like being more disagreeable, masculine, organizing, in charge etc than him


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

OrchidSugar said:


> I agree with you. There are many advantages to being a woman. I also think that anyone can have more privilege over anyone else, depending on the criteria you are using. No matter what, you can always find someone doing better than you or worse than you, depending on the criteria. But I do think it's possible
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you're arguing here, but it's an inspiring story of triumph from your friend.
> ...


If it comes down to it, the biggest privilege in existence is wealth privilege. Have you ever noticed how the rich don't care whether you're talking with a rich black, rich white, rich woman, rich man? That in-fighting is for the poor to keep them occupied. Otherwise they may demand more rights and more money.

I'm arguing that companies with fucked up management exist. You story of being punished for basically doing the right thing reminded me of him.

It was in response to this "So a lot of men feel like their domain is being encroached upon by women and they are confused, angered, or disgusted by this" that I've made the argument that I never heard 1 man in my life saying "women take our jobs".

What I mean by "exert power" and "wanting to gain an unfair advantage that seems that people have a problem with" is this:

There is one thing to have the same opportunities as men and a fair treatment in the selection process.
And another to have "equality of outcome" or "equity" TM which is in my opinion a nice for for "discrimination with a human face".

This "equity" is simply a good excuse for discrimination. Old equality was outdated, we need equity now, which means giving more to those we decide to have less, who decides? we decide.

"Equity" is so absurd and easily abuseable. How do you decide who has less? except for obvious cases like people with disabilities, you don't. You just make a value judgement "this group is marginalized" so you can offer more to that group and still call yourself moral. What if that group isn't in fact marginalized? doesn't matter, you're the powers that be, you have power over equity resource management. Twitter or Youtube had a "diversity manager" position which is the wokest thing I have ever heard, of course it had to be a woman and I don't think she got that job for anything other than her womaness. But hey, this unfair advantage it's justifiable in the name of "equity", it's not equality, it's "equity". In numerous universities in America, Indian students have their admission exams lowered by 20% in the name of equity (too many Indian students, need more representation from other races too). This is beyond fucked up and the inequality I was talking about disguised as "equality with a nice face".

Not holding the door, but a woman accusing a man. As you can instantly guess, everyone started from the assumption that "the woman must be right". Why? "she's a woman, why would she say so otherwise?".

Good point, it's often easier to punch at your peers to maintain some semblance of potency, than it is to confront who is actually oppressing you and who has actually disenfranchised you.


beth x said:


> I view your stereotypes and blaming women for being hit as sexist and just plain wrong. The mental gymnastics to get to where a woman has responsibility for being hit by just making the choice of being with a man who turns out to be abusive. It seems as if you're saying some men are born bad and that it's evident that they are that way and anyone who interacts with them are responsible for their actions. A man who has money marries a woman who only wants their money is also not to blame for their wife's intent. It should be said though, that intent to procure advantage in a marriage isn't the fecking same as being abused. Being abused by someone is not your fault. So just because you say you believe people are responsible for everything that happens to them doesn't make it correct. It is objectively incorrect. If you were to say that you believe in the ultimate responsibility of Sartrian thought it still isn't you who is doing the hitting when you are experiencing DV. How you got there is by using the idea that "she asked for it". There isn't a way around it. She isn't doing the hitting, she is being hit. She is objectively not the person responsible for being hit.
> 
> The use of violence in a casual manner in the way that you talk about interactions with other men; it seems that you are OK with violence. That violence amongst men is OK somehow and that they are naturally violent so they curb tendencies around women. How is OK to be violent in the first place when there are laws prohibiting it?
> 
> ...


I view the way you are twisting my words as mental gymnastics.

Allow me to summarize my mental gymnastics:

You were robbed in the middle of the daylight on the street, 3 PM in a park with a lot of people, there's no way you could have predicted this, just bad luck.
You were robbed in the middle of the night in a back alley, 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood, because you decided you can go through there alone, it's fine.

Whose fault is that they were robbed at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood? The robber's? Go again at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood, and you will find another robber that's at fault, and another, and another. For some reason these robbers just happen through no fault of your own. For some reason these robbers just don't understand that they are at fault and need to stop. We need to educate the robbers more, so I can safely go at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood, one day if we push hard enough in this direction the robbery rate would be 0% as we would completely eradicate this crime by educating robbers, they just don't know that what they are doing is right.

Replace robber with abusive husband & robbed with domestic abuse victim. It's not even gymnastics, it's morning stretching.

This mindset of "I don't need to protect myself, they need to learn to be better, why should I learn to spot the dangers when I can just blame it on them?" will only ensure that you are the next victim. I can guarantee (and in my experience when talking face to face with women who were domestically abused, like that barista I told you about, that was the case) that women who are domestically abused have this mindset of "the man and only the man is at fault", because if they wouldn't have that mindset, they wouldn't be in that situation to being with next to that abusive man, they would have long left him if even dated him in the first place.

There's an old saying "I hope the problem is me, because if the problem is other people, I can't fix it".

Well yeah, those men were there, but you made the call to be with them. If you are 1 woman, and have to pick between 10 men. And pick the worst man possible. Who domestically abuses you. Is this the fault of the 9 other men? should the 9 other men be better men because you made the wrong choice? The same thing applies gender-reversed (like men and gold diggers).

So all things considered, I have a hard time seeing how this is not the fault of the woman, while you have a hard time seeing how this is the fault of the woman.

Not sure if born or made (that's a discusion for another topic), but some men are bad, like plain bad. No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying some men are bad, and that it's evident that they are that way, and they are responsible for their own actions, but at the same time you are responsible for your actions.

If they are bad and punched someone, their fault, their actions, you decided to flirt with them or date them or marry them? your fault, your actions.

You can't take your personal agency out of this. You are responsable for yourself. Heck, the only person this piece of advice is going to help you is you "watch out for men who are abusive, don't flirt, date or marry abusive men". It's going to help women a lot more than saying "he should change, he should not be abusive", yeah, fat chance, might as well attempt to change the weather.

Why is a man who has money and marries a woman who only wants their money not to blame for his wife's intent? This situation clearly sucks for the man. The woman is perfectly happy with it. But for the man it sucks because turns out his life was a lie. Whose responsability was to protect from that? Should the gold-digging woman be responsable with not being gold-digging or the man be responsable with not finding gold-digger women? The men who believe the former are usually celebrities paying 200k child support because the condom "accidentally" broke and the woman decided to keep the child for a quick way to get rich.

I 100% agree that this isn't correct. Never said this is correct or fair. I was only saying that this is how it is and you need to protect from it, you have a responsability to protect yourself from it.

It kind of is your fault if you put yourself in the position and situation to be abused (flirted with them, dated them, married them). Do you think women who ignored these bad men when they hit on them ever ended up abused? I wonder why.

Well, ironically, I agree with this statement - "just because you say you believe people are responsible for everything that happens to them doesn't make it correct". I agree, it's not correct, yet people are still responsable.

But how did you get from this to "It is objectively incorrect" I don't know, why is it objectively incorrect and how would you define objectively correct?

I wouldn't go as far as saying Sartrian thought, it's a good philosophy but doesn't overlap in this case. Well, if you get hit by a truck, it still isn't you who is doing the hitting when you are experiencing being hit by a truck. But what did you expect was going to happen running in the middle of the road?

I did not use the idea that "she asked for it", because she didn't. But nonetheless, these are the results of her actions, even if she didn't ask for it.

Instead of making assumptions about how I got there why not just ask?


Squirt said:


> Is that a benefit, or a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is that a benefit if you want to harm others, a problem if you don't. The point of saying that "Plenty of men have no issues picking on another man below their "weight class". In fact, sometimes they pick on other men exactly because they are below their weight class" was in response to your comment that men may not pick on women because they seem them as inherently inferior thus a fight not worth having. It's an interesting argument, but they certainly don't have a problem when it comes to picking on inherently inferior men.

Berate, as in do what exactly? I imagine this is farily different from the male world.

Interesting, so women do use aggression between women. Rarely heard of this.

I think the vast majority of men would have no issue acceping the deal with 50% of domestic workers and other low-paid pink-collar jobs be taken by men as well, for "equality" sake. In exchange for 50% of coal miners being women.

Pink-collar jobs are actually good jobs. If you want to live a relaxed lifestyle without a high income but at the same time without a highly stressful job, a pink-collar jobs is perfect. Nice, not highly paying but relaxing. I was a middle school teacher for 2 years, really easy job, perfect job for retirement in fact.

Jobs like coal miner or lumberjack on the other hand are pure hell.

I can't tell what percentage. I just go with "in general" and make a vague estimation. Some women are going to be way too manipulative, some women not manipulative at all. Some men are going to be way too aggressive, some men not aggressive at all. But in general, you'd be more likely to find manipulative women and aggressive men when we talk about the bad traits both genders display. It's more a tool for helping you navigate the world in front of you, to know what to expect. I don't find figuring out a fixed or even relative percentage helpful for navigating the world, we can go deeper with this, what percentage where, in US? in China? in the world? it just gets messy and unuseful.

I very much doubt their reputation would suffer in the first place.

They would be hailed as a model of equality by radical feminists and be immune to criticism because of this. Reputation as a business would be showing that "women can do it". Heck, they don't even have to market it outright, it's not like people number how many managers or workers a company has. They could easily have 80% women and 20% men and just say "we didn't try to hire any women because they are women, it's because each particular female candidate we found happened to be more fit for the job".

The dominant culture is the left-wing, as much as feminism and black lives matter and gay rights want to come off as "anti-establishment" when BMW puts the pride flag on their logo you are not anti-establishment, you are the establishment. And one of the main advantages of being the dominant culture is that you can use the dominant culture to shield you, why do you think a lot of brands try to be as "woke" as possible? Do you think they care about gay rights, women rights or black lives matter? nah, it's because they care about the $$$ and they know that's where $$$ are. Just check BMW Saudi Arabia and see if it has a pride flag like in US. Companies only appleal to these values so that you are more like them so that you buy more stuff from them.

Heck, if anything I've seen companies persecuted for not being "woke" enough than for being "too woke".

Ok, won't insist on Lonewaer's post again.

So it's not sexist because "that is just a fact you can verify". You mean to say that truth makes it unsexist? then whether saying "women are more manipulative and men more aggressive" is sexist or not depends on what we can verify/agree as truth. If we disagree about truth, we will also disagree about sexist. By definition of what is considered sexist.

But the biggest problem with this busswording is lack of innovation. "Sexism" is the new "racism" that was the new "nazi". What used to be the nazi? some terrible people. What are the nazi right now? people who are not far-left enough. It's been misused to much it has been desensitized. Just apply a buzzword to it, it doesn't have to be correct, it only has to be around the subject and sound bad.

Now, what if men turned out to be faster swimmer than women (I have no idea, just making a hypothetical case), and somone wants to make a study whether men are indeed faster swimmers. Since that isn't yet a fact you can verify, you know what that man is for even suggesting that? a sexist. This is how the busswords do more harm than good. They're really good for politicians and in-fighting.



> I don't think the solution is to go back to some old fantasy about "what it means to be a man" or whatever and encourage boys to be ashamed of what this fantasy deems as "too girly." I think we need to move forward about it, and stop being so judgmental if folks don't fit into some binary mold. Jumping on a bandwagon to cast out men who don't fit a certain mold isn't helping us to stop the Elliot Rogers, if that even has anything to do with his motivations.


This sounds good in theory. But did you ever date a guy like Elliot Rogers? I don't know, but I'm going to roll the dice and assume no. I wonder why, maybe because he was too feminine?

Andrew Tate said "life is a competition and women pick the winners". I wouldn't go that far and that cutthroat, but there some seed of truths in what he is saying.

Life isn't a competition, we're not out there fighting each other, but women do pick the winners. Are you a hot man? women want you. Are you a feminine-looking man? women don't want you. You don't get to have relationships success, it sucks. But at least you get to have female compassion, they will tell you that they "love you as a friend" and get hostile towards you if you make a move towards them because you "expect entitlement to sex, how dare you?".

I'm hot, I expect entitlement to sex, and I usually get it. Women seem to have no problem with this, in fact it's them who want it. What's the difference between me and that guy? looks.

So yeah, it's very easy to see "we can all be fine an dandy" but that won't work out for them. It won't even work out as a consolation prize.

It's a grey area from your perspective as a woman because you don't know what women respond to because you've never been put in the situation of having to attract women, and seeing what works. You were put in the positions of stating what you think your preferences are that could be very different from reality. What attracts you and what you think attracts you could be 2 very different things.

It's like me talking about what makes a woman attractive to a man. I don't know! I just see a woman and find her attractive. I was never put in the position of being a woman and having to figure out what makes men attractive to me. I'm as clueless about this as you are about the above paragraph, this is why it's a grey area for you.

Well yes, _no one_ is entitled to a job _or_ sex, it's a privilege not a right. You have to earn it. Do your job to earn it.

It is worth it to go back and hash it out, maybe I have missed it. Ok, I respect your decision and agree with you that we have a far more productive conversation right now as it is.

I don't know if this is a good comparison. As a man you want to feel "strong", as a woman you want to feel "pretty". What if you were told as a woman your entire life that you want to be strong, muscles, armpits, hair, whatever, that you have to be strong, so you follow the social norm and what society "instructs" you, but deep down inside you want to feel pretty.

Does that make sense?

Oh, you meant how are the feminists repressing it if they want it, I thought you meant how are the feminine men repressing it ^. For the feminists, it's exactly like this:


> Heck, I saw a funny video recently: There was this leftist vegan girl who said she always had bad boy types, and she just couldn't conceive a child (willingly), and then she met this guy and she wasn't into him at all (soft friendly guy, smallish too), until she later decided she wanted to try it anyway and eventually got the much wanted child with her openly alt-right man. And then a comedian said: officially they are leftist vegan 'goody goody' girls, but at the same time (when they are horny esp) they want misogynistic bad men.
> 
> Whose fault was that that woman was senseless lol? She's probably going to be just another victim of domestic abuse, but hey, she likes bad boys. This exact woman was of the opinion in the future there would be only nerdy men. The comedian was like: all this violence its disgusting... fuck me! Like "yeah, you're a bad boy, and I generally don't like that, but I just make an exception for you, your violence disgusts me, want to screw around?".
> 
> ...


You can notice the stark contrast between her declarations and her actions.

We live in a society telling us to be feminine, we as men, more than ever now, more than was told 100 years ago, more than was told 50 years ago. Women are told to be men (female power!) and men are told to be women (simp infestation) lol. Testosterone is at an all level low in modern society (actual study on this, not a metaphor). And yet, I seem to be doing pretty good living as a masculine man. And this is coming from a masculine-looking man who has quite some feminine traits by nature.

Where as when I look at the men who are overly-feminine or way too feminine, yeah, their life just sucks. Not only on the internet like the skinny guy with glasses who is emasculated and then angry at the world for being emasculated. Or the fat nice guy with a fedora who has class, tips his fedora and finds himself charming, like women would be wet when he tips his fedora. Or simply the fat nice guy who is generally a nice dude with not much going on, he's nice but plain, with not much going on. It's like society teaches us wrong how to be men, not only doesn't teach us anything, but what they teach us teaches us wrong, and I'm saying this in terms of the results we get as in life satisfaction from behaving as society tells us to behave or behaving otherwise and being men.

Because more men like sports than women. I gain an accurate evaluation of reality. More men like sports than women. More women like fashon than me. If I were to make a sports/fashon event, my target audience would be men/women, if I want to have a profit.

How am I side-stepping it if I'm saying that is the main issue?

That's the thing, advocacy for more transparency in pay won't benefit corporations.

They don't contradict that part. What is missing in his argument is any evidence for his stated reason they leave jobs that require a lot of time investment and "hustling" as compared to men. He said it was because they'd rather be moms and provides no data/support for that assertion except some appeal to "common sense" and "cuz obviously women want babies more," as if men don't want children.*

Women want children far more than men do on average. Women are more.... well, motherly. Again (not want to say this on every turn, so consider it as applying to pretty much everything I say) on average.

How do they get far less benefit and social/cultural support for it than men do? is there any data/support for that assertion?

He did mention in the same video that ambitious women who climb the ladder generally have nannies so that's how they deal with "they take care of a household" if they really want to go that route.

What are the privileges and incentives men have for those positions?

Fair point. Women wanting children & career and being unable to have both is a factor.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Dezir said:


> If it comes down to it, the biggest privilege in existence is wealth privilege. Have you ever noticed how the rich don't care whether you're talking with a rich black, rich white, rich woman, rich man? That in-fighting is for the poor to keep them occupied. Otherwise they may demand more rights and more money.
> 
> I'm arguing that companies with fucked up management exist. You story of being punished for basically doing the right thing reminded me of him.
> 
> ...


You can't explain a relationship like being out at 3 am or pm and the experience of being robbed. One has a random aspect and the other is a relationship. Plus it's stupid. Don't be stupid. This is the mental gymnastics I have tried to explain to you. I made a call to be with a person who was decent and didn't throw me around the room. 

The term sexism isn't the new buzzword for Nazism. WTH? If you don't want to be seen as a person who is sexist then perhaps you need to address your own behaviour. Being called a sexist for calling women manipulative? It's a case of the shoe fitting. The word has been around for longer than my lifetime and rather than being a buzzword, it describes a way of behaviour. So does Nazism but they aren't interchangeable. Can't believe this needs addressing tbh. If you don't know the difference perhaps try getting an education so you can understand what you are talking about before engaging others about it. Perhaps ask others? IDK this seems like a personal problem.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Squirt said:


> Is that a benefit, or a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


THANKS

I know you did not say that for me and were just saying it to him.

But thanks.

I have been tagged by him on more than one occasion gaslighting me about my life to make an example out of me, or to try to make his own points. Which I recognize I open myself up for if I am exposed. But what you said there to him, needed to be said by someone outside just mods, or said by someone who is not like myself, who is meant by him as an example to make a point to support his ideology.

Again I know you did not say that for me. Still thanks.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

secondpassing said:


> I watched it, and I think I understand his message and why he said it. I don't agree with him, but I don't think it was manipulative.


I understand his message as well. It is manipulative in the same way marketing is. You figure out what the people dream of and then you sell that dream back to them for a profit. This could be dangerous dealing with such a forlorn group of outcasts and misfits. Of course I think the church can be an excellent resource for people, and religion seems to do a lot of good.

But rhetoric of the “tell them who they are. Ask more of them than you’ve ever asked before.” Is too much for me. High chance for exploitation. We know some churches demand its followers to donate 10% of their salaries. That’s where my mind went when I heard him say demand more from them. Also I’ve seen a little bit how cults operate in real time. Find someone isolated and give them a family and something to believe in, etc. The big bad world isn’t giving you women? We’ll see to it that you don’t remain single.

It’s not religion itself. Of course it could be a wonderful, pro-social arena for these young men to flock to. It would be the combination of Jordan’s beliefs about women being inherently chaotic and malevolent. And needing their sexuality, romance, and mating patterns to be managed in a top down, administrative way. I believe this is why he has been recruited by the American right wing. Because such ideas fall in line with the current push to reverse contraception. It’s known that religions are running neck and neck with major corporations for political control. Despite the so called separation of church and state, they have the funds, the tax exemptions, and the prowess to see their will be imposed on the social order in the most extreme ways.

It’s not the appeal to religion itself. Just taken in concert with some of Jordan’s other teachings, that’s what’s given me pause.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

beth x said:


> You can't explain a relationship like being out at 3 am or pm and the experience of being robbed. One has a random aspect and the other is a relationship. Plus it's stupid. Don't be stupid. This is the mental gymnastics I have tried to explain to you. I made a call to be with a person who was decent and didn't throw me around the room.
> 
> The term sexism isn't the new buzzword for Nazism. WTH? If you don't want to be seen as a person who is sexist then perhaps you need to address your own behaviour. Being called a sexist for calling women manipulative? It's a case of the shoe fitting. The word has been around for longer than my lifetime and rather than being a buzzword, it describes a way of behaviour. So does Nazism but they aren't interchangeable. Can't believe this needs addressing tbh. If you don't know the difference perhaps try getting an education so you can understand what you are talking about before engaging others about it. Perhaps ask others? IDK this seems like a personal problem.


The whole point of this, was that it's not a random aspect, you have agency there, in both cases:


> Allow me to summarize my mental gymnastics:
> 
> You were robbed in the middle of the daylight on the street, 3 PM in a park with a lot of people, there's no way you could have predicted this, just bad luck.
> You were robbed in the middle of the night in a back alley, 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood, because you decided you can go through there alone, it's fine.
> ...


It's not all random aspect, neither being robbed, neither getting into a relationship with an abusive man. The chance is never 0% or 100%, but any person with common sense will tell you that you have a far greater chance of being robbed in the middle of the night in a back alley at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood, than in the middle of the daylight on the street at 3 PM in a park with a lot of people. It's not that difficult to put into perspective. The only mental gymnastics I see are from your part.

Just because it's contrary to your own belief system it doesn't mean it's stupid. I haven't seen any argument why this comparison doesn't work other than you don't like it.

Mental gymnastics and a desperate attempt to frame me because you disagree with me.

Yeah, it is, it has lost all meaning because it was misused so often by the far-left. Why nobody except the far-left bats an eye when someone goes on a rant about "sexist, racist, etc" ? because of the story of the boy who cried wolf. If you scream "sexist, racist" when there's nothing there long enough, eventually no one is going to believe you.

Does saying "men are stronger than women" makes me a sexist as well? despite being objectively correct?

I'm not seen as a person who is sexist, moderate people don't see me as sexist, sure there's always far-left people who are like "everyone who is right of the far-left is sexist!" thus the misuse of the word, but you can't please everyone. If moderates agree with you you're all right, if radicals agree with you you have a problem. Being called a sexist because you're not far-left enough isn't a case of the shoe fitting. If anything, it's a good thing, it means you're not a radical.

Buzzword = Buzzwords are terms that have spread beyond their original field, and people outside the occupation often use the words imprecisely or pretentiously.

Thank you for enlightening me that sexism & nazism describe a way of behaviour. And buzzwords are terms used imprecisely or pretentiously. What does that mean? That the terms "sexism & nazism" are used imprecisely or pretentiously, which was exactly my point.

But let's talk solutions. We can't agree on causes & faults but we both agree that domestic abuse exists. If you were to be the US president, how would you go on about to solve domestic abuse and why?

Same for wage gap, how would you effectively fix it, what laws would you make to fix the wage gap for example?


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

OrchidSugar said:


> I understand his message as well. It is manipulative in the same way marketing is. You figure out what the people dream of and then you sell that dream back to them for a profit. This could be dangerous dealing with such a forlorn group of outcasts and misfits. Of course I think the church can be an excellent resource for people, and religion seems to do a lot of good.
> 
> But rhetoric of the “tell them who they are. Ask more of them than you’ve ever asked before.” Is too much for me. High chance for exploitation. We know some churches demand its followers to donate 10% of their salaries. That’s where my mind went when I heard him say demand more from them. Also I’ve seen a little bit how cults operate in real time. Find someone isolated and give them a family and something to believe in, etc. The big bad world isn’t giving you women? We’ll see to it that you don’t remain single.
> 
> ...


I think his message, that video included, should give you pause. As I said, I don't agree with this video, I just don't think it is quite right to label his behavior as manipulative. He is persuasive, yes. Manipulative, no. Leave that term for corporations and narcissists.

Consider the null hypothesis: Jordan Peterson is a well-meaning psychology educator primarily seeking to educate young men that also has a measure of reverence for the Christian God. 

I'm no expert on Jordan Peterson, but I've listened to a couple of his earliest publicly available lectures. Through the years, through his rise to publicity and subsequent defamation, his message has mostly been the same. Enough so, that another user commented that he was repeating the same talking points. I think he is just speaking about topics he believes in, ones that will benefit others.

I've watched videos of him discussing in college halls. Why would he do that? I'm pretty sure any admission prices couldn't be very high. A lot of college students are basically broke. He listens when people talk. He thinks before answering. These aren't signs of manipulative behavior. This is fair and unselfish.

As we will agree, churches provide ultility to society-- they provide some structure, give people something to work for, and provide a sense of community. In Jordan Peterson's eyes, this is great. As someone concerned for the well-being of young men and someone who probably generally approves of churches, this is a great answer to their struggles. Is this act of persuasion exploitative? Nay, I think it is simply consistent with his beliefs, both as a professor and as someone religious.

However. You and I both have seen the manipulativeness of the churches and how they exploited the people. They lack integrity. Many modern churches change doctrine like the wind while pocketing the money of the oppressed. For the ultility they do provide, along comes much hardship. I don't think his video contains the correct answer.

Again, I think what Peterson says is simply an attempt at persuasion, but it lacks an exploitative, coercive, or otherwise unfair quality to it. His message is consistent with his knowledge and beliefs. The exploitative force would be the churches. 

If we label him as manipulative, the rest of his ideas will be written off as not worth considering. Which would be a shame, for there are many.

(I've skipped discussing cults, political, and chaos. At this time, I lack sufficient rapport with you to discuss some of those topics. Maybe I will touch on chaos later.)


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

beth x said:


> I don't fully get why people think he is brilliant. It might have something to do with him being able to take the lowest common denominator idea and make it seem like it's academic and fresh.


He just combines academic credentials with a regressive POV, which makes him an useful mouthpiece to other regressives.

That and the fact he presents a semi coherent father figure regressives can accept in an ideological landscape where decent father figures are non existent. His book doesn't tell you anything similar authors haven't tackled but being politically regressive made the stuff palatable to that crowd.

And he now makes more bank catering to their backwards insecurities than he did at UofT because of the nature of his line of work.

He's the male regressive version of Gwyneth Paltrow essentially.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

secondpassing said:


> I think his message, that video included, should give you pause. As I said, I don't agree with this video, I just don't think it is quite right to label his behavior as manipulative. He is persuasive, yes. Manipulative, no. Leave that term for corporations and narcissists.
> 
> Consider the null hypothesis: Jordan Peterson is a well-meaning psychology educator primarily seeking to educate young men that also has a measure of reverence for the Christian God.
> 
> ...


I understand. You think the word manipulation implies conscious negative intent. Maybe you’re right that persuasion would be a better word. But I do think that Jordan is a corporation now. And he is a walking figure head now. I don’t know what his intentions are. I would hate to see his teachings be lost, but I would be extremely weary of how his message is being used by powerful interests.

Especially his assertion that life would be better if we returned to the way things were 100 years ago. A time when married women were socially forced from the workplace, where laws were enacted to pay women less than men in order to maintain the males as being primary bread winners, and when women could not get access to some government jobs if they had an able bodied man in the same household.

There are young people right now fighting for better working conditions and pay that is in line with the cost of living. Putting pressure on corporations. This is what looks like chaos to him. He would rather control women’s mating patterns and appeal to a god that he barely even believes in to make men feel empowered again, rather than to inspect the systemic and socioeconomic factors that are actually emasculating men and mobilizing women towards greater achievement in the workforce.

Also I didn’t mean to overstate my involvement with cults. I have never been in one, but have been approached/recruited several times, and I think I know why.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Necrofantasia said:


> He just combines academic credentials with a regressive POV, which makes him an useful mouthpiece to other regressives.
> 
> That and the fact he presents a semi coherent father figure regressives can accept in an ideological landscape where decent father figures are non existent. His book doesn't tell you anything similar authors haven't tackled but being politically regressive made the stuff palatable to that crowd.
> 
> ...


Are all of these men without fathers?


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

OrchidSugar said:


> Are all of these men without fathers?


Without fathers? No, obviously. Without a father _figure_? Yes.
Regressive gender roles kinda leave men completely unprepared to do anything resembling psychologically nurturing another human being (which made lobotomies very popular anniversary gifts 200 yrs ago) . They're men, not weak sissy snowflakes. And as manly men who are absolutely not concerned with appearance over substance and who prioritize facts over feelings, having a tenured male university prof in a position of marital fulfillment present his ideology as a very public moral crusade to save society from a then relatively obscure, statistically tiny gender non-conforming minority trying to find a place in society chaos was pretty much irresistible. It's the kind of good vs evil "You are the chosen one" tribalistic bullshit regressives in general seem to love.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Dezir said:


> If it comes down to it, the biggest privilege in existence is wealth privilege. Have you ever noticed how the rich don't care whether you're talking with a rich black, rich white, rich woman, rich man? That in-fighting is for the poor to keep them occupied. Otherwise they may demand more rights and more money.
> 
> I'm arguing that companies with fucked up management exist. You story of being punished for basically doing the right thing reminded me of him.
> 
> ...


Man, I'd like to address all your points, but I just don't have time. 

I'll center on theme that seems to underpin all of your arguments: Do you believe sexism towards women doesn't exist or is negligible/not worth considering? If so, we're operating in very different realities.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

secondpassing said:


> I think his message, that video included, should give you pause. As I said, I don't agree with this video, I just don't think it is quite right to label his behavior as manipulative. He is persuasive, yes. Manipulative, no. Leave that term for corporations and narcissists.
> 
> Consider the null hypothesis: Jordan Peterson is a well-meaning psychology educator primarily seeking to educate young men that also has a measure of reverence for the Christian God.
> 
> ...


Why does his message give you pause?

I find it manipulative to "appeal to the church" to encourage young men's distorted perceptions that they are victims and outcasts who are unwanted by society (any more than anyone else). It puts the church in a double-bind, because if they validate his message, it validates the message that boys are indeed somehow outcasts/unwanted. If they reject it, then it makes them look like they are turning away people in need. It's manipulative.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Squirt said:


> Man, I'd like to address all your points, but I just don't have time.
> 
> I'll center on theme that seems to underpin all of your arguments: Do you believe sexism towards women doesn't exist or is negligible/not worth considering? If so, we're operating in very different realities.


I believe sexism towards women exists but not in the way feminists frame it. That may have been the case in the 1950s, but today men have some advantages in some areas, women have some advantages in some areas. I don't consider it negligible but I don't consider it as huge as feminists make it up to be, like women are very below and oppressed by the patriarchy and their life would be great if it weren't for these men and their patriarchy.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

OrchidSugar said:


> I understand. You think the word manipulation implies conscious negative intent. Maybe you’re right that persuasion would be a better word. But I do think that Jordan is a corporation now. And he is a walking figure head now. I don’t know what his intentions are. I would hate to see his teachings be lost, but I would be extremely weary of how his message is being used by powerful interests.
> 
> Especially his assertion that life would be better if we returned to the way things were 100 years ago. A time when married women were socially forced from the workplace, where laws were enacted to pay women less than men in order to maintain the males as being primary bread winners, and when women could not get access to some government jobs if they had an able bodied man in the same household.
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to read. I appreciate not having to delve into semantics.

In the overall theme of things, I don't think Jordan is pushing a narrative of some patriarchal oppression. He's a professor and has been telling mainly men that they don't need to apologize for being men, they should work hard to support their communities, and how to be competent. Not focusing on socioeconomic qualms, not because he's ignorant, but just because that's not his main focus.

Of the lectures I have watched, I don't remember him advocating a return to the life 100 years ago. That seems quite an absurd assertion. 

But I did rewatch a blip about chaos and femininity last night. Honestly, I didn't find anything particularly egregious. He did _not_ say females are chaos, but he said femininity was. In the same way the yin and the yang are in balance, so too must order and chaos, masculinity and femininity. Essentially, he was saying it's okay for males to be masculine. Now why he used these symbols-- he said it's from a societal pretext that makes them readily understood. He's not wrong, but I don't completely agree that society should have used these symbols in the first place.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Squirt said:


> Why does his message give you pause?
> 
> I find it manipulative to "appeal to the church" to encourage young men's distorted perceptions that they are victims and outcasts who are unwanted by society (any more than anyone else). It puts the church in a double-bind, because if they validate his message, it validates the message that boys are indeed somehow outcasts/unwanted. If they reject it, then it makes them look like they are turning away people in need. It's manipulative.


I think incels exist and are a dangerous part of our society and there's a significant portion of men that have otherwise lost direction and self-confidence. His message towards this victimization (if he is even calling it that) is different from other messages. He's telling these "victims" to "go to work, clean your room, be a man." (Not an actual quote) I think this is significantly different than victimizing and is generally productive.

The fact of the matter is: Many churches are indeed failing society, and with it, young men. They've failed to provide satisfying answers to life's questions and have failed to provide meaningful work. This isn't manipulative. They just done poorly.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> I don't remember who said it, maybe Jordan Peterson, but it went something like this:
> 
> In USA, 43% of boys are raised by single mothers, 78% of teachers are female.
> So close to 50% of boys have a female influence only at home.
> ...


I don’t think it’s masculinity or femininity that is the issue.
In war can you trust the feminine man who fights by your side? How do you know he will mutiny?
What if it is a masculine woman? Do you trust her? Anymore or less?

you would only trust the person based on their character, not their sex or propensity towards masculine or feminine.

there really is no such thing as toxic masculinity or femininity. There is vice and virtue and it acts according to each persons actions…it does not distinguish between, race, gender, sex, or demeanor.

Vice hides like rot behind isms and principals but vice is not any of that. Greed, avarice, and lust are toxic. But is an overly feminized man with barely any vice toxic compared to a masculine man who endlessly hordes his time and works out all day?

no. Femininity and masculinity are not ethical constructs. They can be used as vehicles by others to deliver damage but the cause of the damage is the rot in the hearts of people.

there are vile men who have strong masculine natures and their are vile women exhibit femininity. Celebrity feminists and celebrity chads for instance are vile creatures. But there are wholesome, beautiful, kind and loving feminists too. Therefore it is not feminism that is the issue, but the state of the soul.

there are super meek, effeminate men that would die for their country and to protect the ones they love and there are masculine men who would try and sleep with your partner and backstab you in a moment.

do not be deceived.

judge a person by their character…not the color of their hair.


----------



## Plusless (Aug 19, 2020)

Squirt said:


> Why does his message give you pause?
> 
> I find it manipulative to "appeal to the church" to encourage young men's distorted perceptions that they are victims and outcasts who are unwanted by society (any more than anyone else). It puts the church in a double-bind, because if they validate his message, it validates the message that boys are indeed somehow outcasts/unwanted. If they reject it, then it makes them look like they are turning away people in need. It's manipulative.


So you do believe in the pity olympics?
"Any more than anyone else"

Men can feel/be victims or outcasts yet when validated those feelings become "distorted perceptions"?

You do realize that your take is a prime example of the so called "toxic masculinity" men are being called out for?


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

secondpassing said:


> Thank you for taking the time to read. I appreciate not having to delve into semantics.
> 
> In the overall theme of things, I don't think Jordan is pushing a narrative of some patriarchal oppression. He's a professor and has been telling mainly men that they don't need to apologize for being men, they should work hard to support their communities, and how to be competent. Not focusing on socioeconomic qualms, not because he's ignorant, but just because that's not his main focus.


I don't think he is a sexist or consciously trying to oppress women. If he has a target audience and found a niche to whom he can dedicate his service, then that's great. But why shout down people who have chosen to focus their energy on top-down improvements? Surely they also have a right to focus their energy that way, just as much as he hopes to inspire individual change from the bottom up. His basic argument is that young people should stop whining, grow up, clean their rooms, not be entitled to being able to afford to live, etc. So essentially, society doesn't have a problem, you have a problem. Strikes me as gaslighting. No maybe you have a problem and society has a problem that both need fixing. But I have never heard him say, "oh yeah, it's great that these young people are leveraging political power and purchasing power and advocating for better policies and systems." But no, it's always, "these young people are lazy and entitled and they don't know hard work and they're trying to burn down everything we've built." 



secondpassing said:


> Of the lectures I have watched, I don't remember him advocating a return to the life 100 years ago. That seems quite an absurd assertion.


I don't want to mischaracterize his argument. And I have watched a lot of snippets of him speaking, but I doubt I will be able to find it. In general he thinks that life was harder in the past 150 years or so, due to economic hardship and war, diseases, mortality, etc, which made people live desperately. That the young people of today know nothing about hardship and sacrifice. But I believe that he thinks society _functioned_ better 100 years ago, when people knew their proper role in society and in family. The reason that I think this is because I believe I saw him mentioning the advancements of feminism, and arguing that none of it has actually seemed to make women happier. And I was partially responding to the article beth x posted as well where the writer describes his argument of enforced monogamy. I just don't know what that means, or what it would look like. But if I had to wager, I would say whatever it is will play right into politicians' obsession with regulating the female womb.



secondpassing said:


> But I did rewatch a blip about chaos and femininity last night. Honestly, I didn't find anything particularly egregious. He did _not_ say females are chaos, but he said femininity was. In the same way the yin and the yang are in balance, so too must order and chaos, masculinity and femininity. Essentially, he was saying it's okay for males to be masculine. Now why he used these symbols-- he said it's from a societal pretext that makes them readily understood. He's not wrong, but I don't completely agree that society should have used these symbols in the first place.


I don't mind his use of allegories and storytelling. It's well known symbolically that that is how femininity and masculinity have been characterized long before him. But he needs to focus on teaching and coaching men, if that's his specialty. Not feed a group of angry disaffected men more garbage about how women don't know what's good for them, how they don't know what they want, etc.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

MadMaxSDP said:


> there are vile men who have strong masculine natures and their are vile women exhibit femininity. Celebrity feminists and celebrity chads for instance are vile creatures. But there are wholesome, beautiful, kind and loving feminists too. Therefore it is not feminism that is the issue, but the state of the soul.


I think when we fall into these traps of only seeking out the hypermasculine/hyperfeminine avatars we are doing ourselves a disservice. We should be striving to live and show up as authentically as possible, and for most people that will look like having some elements of both femininity and masculinity. Repression is the thing that's causing a lot of suffering I think.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

@beth x - That was so nice of you to post that article. I'm glad I got to read it. The writer got a few punches in for sure. She has a way with words. And the photographer got a few punches in as well. I agree or am open to some of the things in that article. Whoo! That description of JP as a bit feline was scorching. Oh my god why did that tickle me?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Dezir said:


> The whole point of this, was that it's not a random aspect, you have agency there, in both cases:
> 
> It's not all random aspect, neither being robbed, neither getting into a relationship with an abusive man. The chance is never 0% or 100%, but any person with common sense will tell you that you have a far greater chance of being robbed in the middle of the night in a back alley at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood, than in the middle of the daylight on the street at 3 PM in a park with a lot of people. It's not that difficult to put into perspective. The only mental gymnastics I see are from your part.
> 
> ...


OK that's enough. I'm not going to be manipulated by you and your worldview to blame myself for an abusive relationship. You won't be commenting on my life or gaslighting me again. Thanks. 

If you are to use the word like sexist as a buzzword then you might as well add to that Nazi because 100 years ago it did not exist either. You could say that our language is basically a bunch of buzzwords as language evolves we would be adding a huge number of words as buzzwords. Neither are used pretentiously. That sounds like it came directly out of the mouth of Peterson. We're not involved in a war of language or sexes. But according to him and you it seems there is one. As if there isn't enough of anything else we need to be concerned about.

I am not aiming to fix the wage gap in the US as I don't live there. If you had read the link I posted then you would understand what our govt is doing, has done, to address the wage gap. Childcare access is one, they have already looked at parental leave for men to equal leave for women. Multiple bargaining in the workplace has become law. There are a few more. You could read it so you don't have to repeatedly ask me about it perhaps.

Men are stronger than women? That's not really true either. Boys have a higher infant mortality rate. It's a biological fact that males are the weaker sex in some respects. Females have a better immune system. Women live longer. So, it's just kind of a wrong statement really. Not objectively correct.









Are women really stronger than men? | Angela Saini


When it comes to longevity, surviving illness and coping with trauma, one gender comes out on top. Angela Saini meets the scientists working out why




www.theguardian.com


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

OrchidSugar said:


> I think when we fall into these traps of only seeking out the hypermasculine/hyperfeminine avatars we are doing ourselves a disservice. We should be striving to live and show up as authentically as possible, and for most people that will look like having some elements of both femininity and masculinity. Repression is the thing that's causing a lot of suffering I think.


I don’t think people repress masculinity or feminity. These are discrete structures. The notion of repression itself is somewhat vague. Carl Jung believed we could repress feminine traits but feminity and masculinity in general are too ubiquitous to repress. We will always be aware of our activity to some degree and no single action is fully masculine or feminine


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

MadMaxSDP said:


> I don’t think people repress masculinity or feminity. These are discrete structures. The notion of repression itself is somewhat vague. Carl Jung believed we could repress feminine traits but feminity and masculinity in general are too ubiquitous to repress. We will always be aware of our activity to some degree and no single action is fully masculine or feminine


Hmm. I see. But I think we do have a mythical understanding of masculine and feminine, culturally speaking. This is what I'm talking about repression-wise. Word choice, style of dress, behavioral patterns, methods of expression, etc. But yeah, if we're talking yin and yang, I think it's said that every single thing has elements of both.


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

OrchidSugar said:


> Hmm. I see. But I think we do have a mythical understanding of masculine and feminine, culturally speaking. This is what I'm talking about repression-wise. Word choice, style of dress, behavioral patterns, methods of expression, etc. But yeah, if we're talking yin and yang, I think it's said that every single thing has elements of both.


I don’t know. I would question Thad assumption. It reminds me of the assumption that what annoys us is unrecognized parts of ourselves. I don’t think this is true. I think there are occasions where it is true in homeopathic doses but mostly what annoys us biological and hard wired according to science - if we are talking about sounds for instance.

it’s not shadow material.

same thing with using repression to explain things. I find there are very repressed people who are more self aware than people who are not repressed at all and entirely open. I think the role of constraint is over applied to neuroticism and toxicity. In fact showing too little restraint and not repressing enough is more of an issue in these times.

for instance repressing sexual urges doesn’t really create more. If I experience a sexual release then right after I can continuously repress urges but it will not impact my sexual drive. My biology is what creates my sex drive not my repression of it. If I haven’t had release in a while then I am experiencing the urge to have sex but again that’s a function of time and not repression.

same thing with toxicity. It seems to be a product of vice and nothing else.

then you run into the problem of myth itself. What components are universal? There are cultures that do not distinguish between femininity and masculinity. They arenot even considered realities themselves.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

Good fucking lordy, come to Sex and Relationships… and it’s so damn hot ‘n heavy in here…


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

Dalien said:


> Good fucking lordy, come to Sex and Relationships… and it’s so damn hot ‘n heavy in here…


Yeah Sex and Relationships always ends up like this. Sigh 😔


----------



## Gamine (5 mo ago)

Dalien said:


> Good fucking lordy, come to Sex and Relationships… and it’s so damn hot ‘n heavy in here…


I have not even started yet.  j/k 😇


----------



## Gamine (5 mo ago)

MadMaxSDP said:


> I don’t know. I would question Thad assumption. It reminds me of the assumption that what annoys us is unrecognized parts of ourselves. I don’t think this is true. I think there are occasions where it is true in homeopathic doses but mostly what annoys us biological and hard wired according to science - if we are talking about sounds for instance.
> 
> it’s not shadow material.
> 
> ...


You talk a lot.


----------



## Gamine (5 mo ago)

Next you will play


----------



## MadMaxSDP (2 mo ago)

Gamine said:


> Next you will play


this reminds me of that song by that tall girl with the name Elvis in the title. It alludes me at the moment but when I find it I’ll share it.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

secondpassing said:


> I think incels exist and are a dangerous part of our society and there's a significant portion of men that have otherwise lost direction and self-confidence. His message towards this victimization (if he is even calling it that) is different from other messages. He's telling these "victims" to "go to work, clean your room, be a man." (Not an actual quote) I think this is significantly different than victimizing and is generally productive.
> 
> The fact of the matter is: Many churches are indeed failing society, and with it, young men. They've failed to provide satisfying answers to life's questions and have failed to provide meaningful work. This isn't manipulative. They just done poorly.


I said the appeal to the church _from that article_ was manipulative. Not the church. Not some video about cleaning your room that you might have watched.

He said that social justice and environmentalism shames men for being men and it is up to the church to give these displaced refugees a home where they can conquer lands and take a woman or whatever. So, this message, that society is morally assaulting men for being men and doesn't want them, and the church needs to stop caring about the environment and women's rights (or whatever the anti-patriarchy people want) and tend to "the boys" instead, frames the problem in a manipulative way, yes.

If he'd said something like you said, that there are a lot of lost/confused men out there and the church can be a good place for them to find direction, then that would be fine. Yet, that isn't what he's doing in that message. It seems like he's learned that being antagonizing and ticking all the boxes for religious, right-wing pundit stereotypes gets him the most followers/attention, and he's very carefully crafting his image.

I wish he'd stayed like this, more genuine, nuanced, complex and open with the arcane:






The irony of that talk, and how he's doing shit like this:






The change is kind of fascinating.



Plusless said:


> So you do believe in the pity olympics?
> "Any more than anyone else"
> 
> Men can feel/be victims or outcasts yet when validated those feelings become "distorted perceptions"?
> ...


 If a man believes that society doesn't want him because he's a man, then yes, that is distorted. I would not recommend validating it (saying that society really doesn't want you), like he is doing here:



> He continued, "Invite the young men back, say, literally, to those young men, 'You are welcome here*. If no one else wants what you have to offer, we do. *We want to call you to the highest purpose of your life. We want your time and energy and effort and your will and your goodwill. We want to work with you to make things better, to produce life more abundant for you, and for your wife and children and for your community, and your country, and the world.'"


Maybe religion can help with feeling more connected with others, but not because society hates them for being men and religious bodies won't. The implication here is that "anti-patriarchy society" doesn't want men to serve a higher purpose in life or have abundance. Is that true? I'm not asking if they _feel _that way, but if it is _true_.

If not, why reinforce the belief that "no one else wants you"?


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

OrchidSugar said:


> I don't think he is a sexist or consciously trying to oppress women. If he has a target audience and found a niche to whom he can dedicate his service, then that's great. But why shout down people who have chosen to focus their energy on top-down improvements? Surely they also have a right to focus their energy that way, just as much as he hopes to inspire individual change from the bottom up. His basic argument is that young people should stop whining, grow up, clean their rooms, not be entitled to being able to afford to live, etc. So essentially, society doesn't have a problem, you have a problem. Strikes me as gaslighting. No maybe you have a problem and society has a problem that both need fixing. But I have never heard him say, "oh yeah, it's great that these young people are leveraging political power and purchasing power and advocating for better policies and systems." But no, it's always, "these young people are lazy and entitled and they don't know hard work and they're trying to burn down everything we've built."
> 
> I don't want to mischaracterize his argument. And I have watched a lot of snippets of him speaking, but I doubt I will be able to find it. In general he thinks that life was harder in the past 150 years or so, due to economic hardship and war, diseases, mortality, etc, which made people live desperately. That the young people of today know nothing about hardship and sacrifice. But I believe that he thinks society _functioned_ better 100 years ago, when people knew their proper role in society and in family. The reason that I think this is because I believe I saw him mentioning the advancements of feminism, and arguing that none of it has actually seemed to make women happier. And I was partially responding to the article beth x posted as well where the writer describes his argument of enforced monogamy. I just don't know what that means, or what it would look like. But if I had to wager, I would say whatever it is will play right into politicians' obsession with regulating the female womb.
> 
> I don't mind his use of allegories and storytelling. It's well known symbolically that that is how femininity and masculinity have been characterized long before him. But he needs to focus on teaching and coaching men, if that's his specialty. Not feed a group of angry disaffected men more garbage about how women don't know what's good for them, how they don't know what they want, etc.


In your first paragraph, you accuse him of gaslighting and then subsequently retract(?) that accusation. Is he gaslighting or is he not? Saying that someone is gaslighting is a weighty matter.

Is he shouting down those who are working from the top-down? Sometimes he does this, particularly when he has perceived some sort of injustice, or when those in power have been doing wrong. Such as when he was talking about gender pronoun legislation in Canada, but I don't think that's his main focus. That was just something he offered an opinion on, and now he has a large platform.

Anyway, the main point of my initial comment is simply that he was not being manipulative. It seems though, you feel attacked by his message. While I don't think he has-- such as between the comparison of the struggles of young people and people back then but I'm also skeptical he denounces the progress of the women's rights movement, I don't think it will be me to convince you of this.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Squirt said:


> I said the appeal to the church _from that article_ was manipulative. Not the church. Not some video about cleaning your room that you might have watched.
> 
> He said that social justice and environmentalism shames men for being men and it is up to the church to give these displaced refugees a home where they can conquer lands and take a woman or whatever. So, this message, that society is morally assaulting men for being men and doesn't want them, and the church needs to stop caring about the environment and women's rights (or whatever the anti-patriarchy people want) and tend to "the boys" instead, frames the problem in a manipulative way, yes.
> 
> ...


I think you may have quoted me wrong? You quoted me quoting OrchidSugar, so naturally I thought you were also following our discussion.

I am merely pointing out why it's not manipulative and in-line with his beliefs. I don't understand what you don't understand: There is a group of men who feel they are victims, but he is not "victimizing" them. Many churches have failed their role in society. 

This is no double-bind question. This is not a push to trick the churches into admitting they are wrong. Many churches simply are wrong. 

Since I'm not a religious follower of Peterson and I don't like to address whataboutism, respectfully, I'd like to not respond to the rest of your comment. You are piling more and more accusations. I think I was originally trying to stop what I thought was an unfair view of the man, so that we could return to... I no longer remember. Something about femininity and masculinity probably.

But I did watch that second video. It's interesting.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

I was just gonna point out an irony about the conversation on this thread. Nah, fuck it. Someone's bound to get offended or misunderstand me as someone always does.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

secondpassing said:


> I think you may have quoted me wrong? You quoted me quoting OrchidSugar, so naturally I thought you were also following our discussion.
> 
> I am merely pointing out why it's not manipulative and in-line with his beliefs. I don't understand what you don't understand: There is a group of men who feel they are victims, but he is not "victimizing" them. Many churches have failed their role in society.
> 
> ...


What you’re saying is that don’t think it is manipulative because you believe what he says. I suppose it would be impossible to convince you otherwise in that case, no matter what creepy shit he says.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Dezir said:


> I believe sexism towards women exists but not in the way feminists frame it. That may have been the case in the 1950s, but today men have some advantages in some areas, women have some advantages in some areas. I don't consider it negligible but I don't consider it as huge as feminists make it up to be, like women are very below and oppressed by the patriarchy and their life would be great if it weren't for these men and their patriarchy.


What part of the framing do you disagree with in particular?

What gets crossed for me is what those advantages/disadvantages are. You've been arguing some cases where you think there are advantages for women that they don't recognize, but you also disregard cases where women have said they've experienced disadvantages. So, it comes off like you think there are no disadvantages and only advantages. I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling that with what I've experienced, and what other women have experienced, and the laws/practices I've seen in place. Even in this thread, where you and a few others have said that women making less money than men must be because they really are a _less competent sex_, or lack ambition in their careers, shows that people still hold sexist attitudes (prejudices that foster discrimination, and support specific social roles on the basis of sex).

It also depends on where you live in the world, because discrimination is different in different countries/cultures (you also mentioned that earlier), and I do think it is a common problem in a globally connected society to take on an attitude that something happening very far from you is affecting you directly... because our brains aren't really equipped to handle the proximity of information compared to our physical proximities. Yet, the fact you see it elsewhere so commonly, and it sort of ebbs and flows through history, makes it clear that restricting women's freedoms is a common tactic for social control (often when a society is becoming unstable), where matriarchies are few and far between. When someone makes an argument like, "things were so great 100 years ago" in regard to gender roles, where women had less freedom, or that something like a draconian interpretation of the Bible which treats women as property/inferior/subordinate to men, it is a red flag that the freedoms women have gained are still at risk.

I'd also say that, ideally, as women do gain more freedoms, it is important to advocate for freedom from unfair discrimination or sexism against men, as well, just as men can lookout for the freedoms of women. If you want to discuss what sexism men experience, that is totally cool, too... but I'd avoid what Peterson does, where he suggests that "in the West" all masculinity is being oppressed.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

secondpassing said:


> In your first paragraph, you accuse him of gaslighting and then subsequently retract(?) that accusation. Is he gaslighting or is he not? Saying that someone is gaslighting is a weighty matter.


This is what I said about that.


OrchidSugar said:


> His basic argument is that young people should stop whining, grow up, clean their rooms, not be entitled to being able to afford to live, etc. So essentially, society doesn't have a problem, you have a problem. Strikes me as gaslighting. No maybe you have a problem and society has a problem that both need fixing.


There's nothing wrong with that message if you're talking to a group of kids who don't work, who lack the will to provide for themselves, and who sit around doing nothing all day. But when you're talking about a group of people who are already working full time, already at marriage/family-making age, who can't afford to leave their parents homes, etc. It just seems a little disingenuous. His audience is comprised of a lot of men in their 20's and 30's now. So he's not just talking to college students who lack responsibility. There are a lot of men and a lot of people in general who have every right to feel disaffected due to societal ills. I have concerns about the way that his lessons are being used by special interests. I will say again that I don't know what the man's intentions are. But if you think I went to too far to say "it strikes me as gaslighting" then I can understand. I will rephrase it. It strikes me as a little disingenuous.



secondpassing said:


> Is he shouting down those who are working from the top-down? Sometimes he does this, particularly when he has perceived some sort of injustice, or when those in power have been doing wrong. Such as when he was talking about gender pronoun legislation in Canada, but I don't think that's his main focus. That was just something he offered an opinion on, and now he has a large platform.


His idea of what's considered injustice is a little slippery to me. So it seems like he is okay with calling for structural, top-down change when it comes to issues he's personally offended by. Particularly feminist and liberal interests that he thinks are trying to oppress him and exert power over him and other men. He wanted to call out twitter for silencing him for violating their terms, for example. But Twitter was already an institution in it's own right. With its own set of rules, which he agreed to.

When asked about the patriarchy and men holding more power than women he says that it's been working just fine for a very long time and there's lots of good reasons why that is. OK so don't go trying to change the rules. Sexually-frustrated young men are becoming disillusioned and violent, hmm maybe we should consider enforced monogamy through incentivization strategies that would make it worth women's while to lower their standards. OK so a little rule changing is okay.

It's hard for me to track him sometimes. I do think he is an interesting person with a lot of great ideas. I just said that some of his political notions do scare me. Particularly because I don't know how they will be used or what form they will take.



secondpassing said:


> Anyway, the main point of my initial comment is simply that he was not being manipulative. It seems though, you feel attacked by his message. While I don't think he has-- such as between the comparison of the struggles of young people and people back then but I'm also skeptical he denounces the progress of the women's rights movement, I don't think it will be me to convince you of this.


I'm willing to be wrong about it. And it's possible that I conflated some of his teachings with how they have been used by manosphere/redpill folks. The thing that troubles me the most is that there seems to be no clear line of demarcation. It's hard to know where one ends and the other begins. But if I am a femcel then I will accept my fate and try to improve 😅

I'm linking Dr. Ramani, psychologist and clinical narcissism expert. Just because I thought it was a good move. (I know she's a small fish). She's explaining how snippets of her on a talk show in the 90s are being resurfaced by a manosphere creator to suggest that single mothers are not worthy of dating. What she actually said/meant is that being a single mother brings with it an entire new set of challenges to navigate in the dating market. She didn't address the person directly, just created a line of demarcation between where her ideas end and his begin. I would like to see Jordan do something similar. He obviously can't address every little thing, but it's clear that some of his ideas are being used as justifications for pseudo-intellectual misogyny. I think it would set things straight, but he might lose some of his fan base. It reminds me of the KKK endorsing Trump circa 2016, and the campaign being slow to denounce.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Squirt said:


> What you’re saying is that don’t think it is manipulative because you believe what he says. I suppose it would be impossible to convince you otherwise in that case, no matter what creepy shit he says.


I believe my position was sufficiently clear.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

OrchidSugar said:


> When asked about the patriarchy and men holding more power than women he says that it's been working just fine for a very long time and there's lots of good reasons why that is. OK so don't go trying to change the rules. Sexually-frustrated young men are becoming disillusioned and violent, hmm maybe we should consider enforced monogamy through incentivization strategies that would make it worth women's while to lower their standards. OK so a little rule changing is okay.
> 
> It's hard for me to track him sometimes. I do think he is an interesting person with a lot of great ideas. I just said that some of his political notions do scare me. Particularly because I don't know how they will be used or what form they will take.
> 
> ...


Wonderful comment. 

As I said, since I'm not an expert on Jordan Peterson, I find myself having to re-lookup his stance on some of the shocking phrases. I don't usually do this since I think if people spent time listening to him instead of just jumping to an immediate judgment, his words wouldn't seem that shocking.

Like Dr. Ramani, whom I also respect, he sometimes does a similar thing by being an interviewee. Here is his stance on Enforced Monogamy.

(I was beginning to parse out your quote for brevity, but all of it's is useful context so I stopped. Little lazy to add it back in on a phone, so please forgive me.)


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

secondpassing said:


> Wonderful comment.
> 
> As I said, since I'm not an expert on Jordan Peterson, I find myself having to re-lookup his stance on some of the shocking phrases. I don't usually do this since I think if people spent time listening to him instead of just jumping to an immediate judgment, his words wouldn't seem that shocking.
> 
> ...


Yeah that is helpful. It's the parsing out that is particularly aggravating. I like the way Dr. Ramani addressed her audience directly from her own platform. But maybe JP thinks that the information is out there floating about somewhere for anyone looking to do the research on other people's podcasts. Honestly I would like him to do similar things from his position at Daily Wire, but I think that would not be financially lucrative for him to do so.

I'm still not sure what he thinks the state could do to punish adulterers, though. Or maybe he meant the church should get back to shaming...? I don't know lol. My mind just fills in the blanks. In America, at least, married households are already bringing in more net income and already have greater tax breaks than single households. There are also child credits for people who have kids. These incentives have long been in place. So I would be interested to see what the idea of enforced monogamy would look like in a landscape where those incentives have still not been enough. And I will be interested to see what Americans will cook up next.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

secondpassing said:


> I believe my position was sufficiently clear.


Reading over your posts again, no, it really isn’t, lol. Except for vaguely supporting Peterson and downplaying his more extreme views/behavior.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

Squirt said:


> Reading over your posts again, no, it really isn’t, lol. Except for vaguely supporting Peterson and downplaying his more extreme views/behavior.


My position:
Jordan Peterson was not being manipulative. (in that appeal to churches)

(Exaggeration, for contrast) You seem to think I'm a brainwashed adherent of this cult leader whose goal is to descrate feminism and along with it, societal progress.

But I'm not. While I think Jordan Peterson is a man I hold a measure of respect for, I think his proposals are fair game to be discussed and disagreed with. Some I agree with and some I don't.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

secondpassing said:


> My position:
> Jordan Peterson was not being manipulative. (in that appeal to churches)
> 
> (Exaggeration, for contrast) You seem to think I'm a brainwashed adherent of this cult leader whose goal is to descrate feminism and along with it, societal progress.
> ...


Who was it who thought that stupidity was a good explanation rather than malevolence? Don't worry I looked it up. I think he is stupid.




__





Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity – Sprouts – Learning Videos – Social Sciences







sproutsschools.com




I mean of course, he has an academic career and accolades, written books, but fundamentaly has fallen for the trap of hubris, which is stupid.

I think he is manipulative too as he is going for vulnerable people to enmesh them in his idea of what he perceives as an attack on masculinity. There is nothing organic about the way that he tries to appeal to young men and to get them to argue for women to get back in subordinate roles. He is making a living off his stupid ideas and it's dangerous and cultish. For the most part feminism in the way, it approaches systemic inequality doesn't take anything away from men. It will see that there are issues with men's opportunities as well. The other parts are noise on the internet. His argument is basically that we should roll back to a time pre WWII. Why? 

If it weren't for women working their parts in the war they would have failed and you can't play secondsies to events that have passed. That was the basis of WWII to redo WWI but win that time - and we know that it not only failed but caused global upheaval. You can't make women want to be housewives because that time has passed. Some will want it while others want a more autonomous approach. He is trying to get back to the same time that he experienced growing up. It's a stupid idea and he goes about it in a way that markets to insecurities.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

secondpassing said:


> My position:
> Jordan Peterson was not being manipulative. (in that appeal to churches)
> 
> (Exaggeration, for contrast) You seem to think I'm a brainwashed adherent of this cult leader whose goal is to descrate feminism and along with it, societal progress.
> ...


I thought I was pretty clear manipulation was _inherent in the statements_, like intertwining environmentalism with this theme of oppression of masculinity.

He makes completely exaggerated claims like "marriage is treated like slavery" and men are told they can't be competitive (lol, as billion-dollar sports industries attest, I suppose) that this nebulous society supposedly espouses, and then swoops in to say that men who feel oppressed by this are valid and it isn't true (of course it isn't true because no one claims that it is). I mean, on top of all the things I've already said... there are so many levels of wrong in that video.

If anything, I think we're not reading/hearing the same words. Watch it again:






Am I crazy to find this to be such theatrical bullshit, especially coming from someone with his supposed credentials?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Squirt said:


> Am I crazy to find this to be such theatrical bullshit, especially coming from someone with his supposed credentials?


He seriously would have been censured if he were at my Uni. I don't think it's crazy. He might be but I don't think you are.


----------



## JimT (May 31, 2010)

I don't mean to get into a never-ending debate about Jordan Peterson [JP], especially in a thread that's supposed to be about toxic femininity(?).

But I just wanted to say: JP is just a traditionalist. It means that he has an agenda, just like anyone else with a political label: Feminist, activist, socialist, whatever. But it doesn't mean that he's Satan. People gotta lighten up.

To put it another way:

In my own opinion, JP sucks. I don't like the guy at all. He's been getting increasingly into Bible interpretation. He has recently been putting out videos with Dennis Prager (from the Christian channel PragerU) about Bible topics. To me that sucks because I'm not religious or a traditionalist. I'm an atheist and a liberal.

But whatever. Especially in America, with a large Christian contingent, a traditionalist like JP is going to find a receptive audience. He's just another blue-pill tradcuck similar to Billy Graham or Pat Robertson any of those other hogwash Christian commentators on the American political and social scene.

In short: JP is full of crap, but he is still well within the mainstream. The guy isn't "literally Hitler." He's just a bland traditionalist, one among many.

As a traditionalist, the guy has a distinct political spin. But so do the feminist crowd, the socialist crowd, etc.

IOW, I think Secondpassing has it right. JP is just another mainstream commentator on the social/political scene. I don't agree with him personally. I think he sucks. But I don't see him as any more evil or twisted than, for example, some hard-core feminist commentator engaging in man-bashing and preaching victimhood for all women everywhere.

It's all just spin. I understand, of course, that feminists are going to dislike and target traditionalists. But there's a little bit of the "pot calling the kettle black" in such battles. It's just meeting spin with more spin. It's all just political spin. People need to lighten up.

Just my own drive-by opinion.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

JimT said:


> I don't mean to get into a never-ending debate about Jordan Peterson [JP], especially in a thread that's supposed to be about toxic femininity(?).
> 
> But I just wanted to say: JP is just a traditionalist. It means that he has an agenda, just like anyone else with a political label: Feminist, activist, socialist, whatever. But it doesn't mean that he's Satan. People gotta lighten up.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone here called him evil or Satan. I think he is stupid and uses manipulation. Squirt said he was using manipulation tactics.


----------



## JimT (May 31, 2010)

You call it "manipulation," as though to make it sound worse. I call it spin; same as everyone else with a political agenda.

JP has a political agenda, so he spins. Big deal. You have a political agenda too, so you spin too. Again, big deal.

News flash: Everyone spins.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

JimT said:


> You call it "manipulation," as though to make it sound worse. I call it spin; same as everyone else with a political agenda.
> 
> JP has a political agenda, so he spins. Big deal. You have a political agenda too, so you spin too. Again, big deal.
> 
> News flash: Everyone spins.


OK I guess you think manipulation is worse than being evil? 

Is it political agenda or is it more of a personal crusade to manipulate young men into thinking they have the right to make women subordinate to them? I mean If it was political in a means to get men a fairer deal on their EVs or lower housing costs I would be behind him but his agenda is dangerous for men and women. The aim is to make women subordinate. This kind of is a big deal. His right wing populism can cause more harm - it goes against EVERYTHING that his profession is based in.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

JimT said:


> Here's an interview (18 minutes) with Richard Reeves, author of “Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling." The book just came out very recently. And it has some facts and figures on how men and boys are falling behind women and girls in the workplace and school.
> 
> I don't think that feminists would have any problem with the interview. Reeves celebrates the gains that women and girls have achieved. But he says that men and boys have been left behind, and the solutions that help women and girls don't seem to work for men and boys.
> 
> ...


Oh yeah I watched that one recently too. I thought that was interesting.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Squirt said:


> Well, that was a palate cleanser. Read some reviews of his books. I don't think I'd learn much from _The Coddling of the American Mind_... I saw that all first-hand, lol. But I may read _The Righteous Mind_.
> 
> I found out he did an interview with Jordan Peterson. If anyone else is interested in a listen here is a link:
> 
> ...


That morality test is political and skewed towards American politics.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Dezir said:


> 1. To begin with, we talked in this topic about this: masculinity.
> (I'll bring up some quotes from what I previously said for extra detail, to avoid misunderstanding/give a more in-depth explaination of what I mean, but really just focus on the non-quoted lines, it's a complex topic so maybe it will help, I'm trying to explain myself as best as possible without getting into muddy vague field)
> 
> That's one part where I disagree with the feminists. They want men to be more like women, and women to be more like men. We don't need that, we need men to be men. We need men to be masculine. Women being more masculine would work, some men like masculine strong women, but men being feminine will only be bad for them.
> ...


Women don't try to be males. They don't expect men to be more female either. I don't think any women need a man to be nicer either. Just not to be abusive. As far as an underreported phenomenon there seems not to be a minority. It's a common thing. If there is a DV phone call in Australia every two minutes to police. Then it's not a minority. It happens often and more often the men are the perpetrators of the DV.

Please just stop victim blaming. You can try your entire life to be risk-averse and still have bad things happen to you. Look at the Just World fallacy. When I asked you to stop gaslighting me about my previous abusive relationship I didn't expect you to avoid posting to me just keep justifying it in another post. I want you to understand what victim blaming is and how it happens. Take a look at the fallacy.




__





Just-world hypothesis - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Here is a myth I'm about to break about how women dress (and if they are dressing in short skirts). It's not usually for men. They dress to look good. There are women who might dress to look good for men. There might be women who are dressing for women, but basically, it's to look good. The default isn't about men it's about dressing yourself for yourself. I thought this might have been obvious.

Your question to feminists about trying to get men to be more feminine is a moot point. Feminism is not about making men into women and women into men so there is only one neutral gender. That's weird.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

@Dezir I'm just not convinced that "masculine" or "feminine" presentation is a driving factor (as someone also argued earlier) for issues like feeling a lack of autonomy/respect in society or doing well at a job or being able to get a partner. I've had a bit of change in perspective forming over this issue the past few days... that many of these polarities and dysfunctions might relate more to cultural changes around maturity, and problems of perhaps a delayed emotional/social maturity and opportunity due to changes in parenting, lifestyles, values and economic problems in affluent countries (for both men and women, but which may be affecting them differently). There is a lot to it, though. Some researchers have even coined a term for a between stage between childhood and adulthood: "emerging adulthood."

The Changing Economics and Demographics of Young Adulthood: 1975-2016 (census.gov)

Many of the difficulties you describe could fall in line with this. I've noticed a tendency to label childish behaviors as feminine, like "simps." Other behaviors I can't really figure out what you're defining as masculine/feminine. Like, how is being respectful gendered? How is "being a nerd" gendered? What a lot of those examples show is a lack of social awareness or confidence, goofiness, awkwardness, or immaturity (under-developed, like your example of a really skinny guy), not femininity. Your example of the vegan girl was also really immature behavior.

But, what it might underscore is a lack of clear path for _adulthood_, which is becoming less defined by gender roles (and might make "traditionalists" as Jim called them raise their hackles and try to get back to some status quo that happened 100 years ago). Like in the census report above, which is only for the US but we'll take it as a possible example, opinions about milestones for adulthood switched heavily away from marriage and children (where men and women take on different roles) to education and career attainment (for everyone), this at the same time women have been more encouraged towards education and career attainment. On top of that, if you "can't be an adult" until after you complete a 4-year degree and get employed, you're not an adult until your 24 - 25, where folks did not conceptualize it that way 30+ years ago. So maybe you see a "lack of men" because both men and women have become delayed in leading more adult lives and don't have a clear idea of what that even means or ability to do so until well into their 30s. Due to their social/cultural histories and more programs geared toward helping young women achieve economic independence and assuming young men just will skate on through "like always" despite recessions and economic hardships, young men have been affected heavily. It doesn't really require a lot of sexist ideas about the inherent desires/roles of men and women to explain, just cause and effect based on history and current trends. 

What is interesting is a similar thing happened when completing high school became a big deal, back in the 1920s... it "delayed" men and women from entering the workforce and marrying by their teenage years. Also, funny enough, there are parallel stories about high school being a hot bed of immoral behavior among horny youth free from restriction that gets people bothered about college students now with "hookup culture." Around the 1900s - 1920s is when "dating" even started becoming a thing in the US.

I looked up statistics on single mothers and could not find anything that said close to 50% of boys come from homes without a father figure. The closest I could find was this:



> The share of children who are living with an unmarried parent varies by race and ethnicity. More than half (58%) of black children are living with an unmarried parent – 47% with a solo mom. At the same time, 36% of Hispanic children are living with an unmarried parent, as are 24% of white children. The share of Asian children living with unmarried parents is markedly lower (13%).


About one-third of U.S. children are living with an unmarried parent | Pew Research Center

Overall, it works out to about 21% of kids living with moms, which hasn't changed substantially in the last 20 years for that set of data. Then you have to make the case that living with his mom makes a boy more feminine somehow, and that just because a boy doesn't have his biological father raising him in the home, there are no male influences in his life (uncles, family friends, grandfathers, teachers (because yes some are male), dad even though they aren't cohabitating, fathers of their friends, etc.).

I'm not surprised you are Libertarian, lol. The test pegged me as left-liberal but had scores on par with conservative with purity and loyalty. I might have taken it wrong, too... I didn't quite understand how I was supposed to rate questions that didn't seem to have any moral dimension. I don't have any particular political affiliation and try to evaluate based on actual policy/ideas rather than party/platform. 

That paper about moral stereotypes was really interesting, thanks.

@JimT Thanks for the links! I wrote the above before watching. I was curious how much Reeves's book might be similar to what I'm proposing above, or very different. After I watched, his figures track with the census report. Decline of trades seem to explain a lot of this data... how men could still be earning more with less educational attainment, but the "middle class" incomes are disappearing, and it is possible you'll see even more declines in the future. No good. If anyone would call just pointing out facts like that "misogynistic" they're not paying attention.



beth x said:


> That morality test is political and skewed towards American politics.


My understanding is he used it in several different countries. It is a "test" to see how morality translates across political views. What concerns do you have about it, bias-wise?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Squirt said:


> My understanding is he used it in several different countries. It is a "test" to see how morality translates across political views. What concerns do you have about it, bias-wise?


I didn't really give a toss about most of the questions and thought I might as well leave them neutral. I'm a true neutral in just about every moral alignment test.

I vote for my interests (we are all voters here as soon as we reach 18, it's a compulsory thing). I follow the rule set here in the spirit of the way they are written. I care about harm to others rather than what people's attitudes are. I came out as a libertarian. I'm not libertarian. I fit exactly where I live in a left leaning socialist leaning Labour party with Greens Party voting. I am middle of the road where I live and we have a very popular Premier and a very popular socialist left PM. I voted for them. I am viewed on here as a far-left radical feminist. I think it's probably time the US took a look at itself.

EDIT. I should add that Melbourne was the most livable city for many years until we had that lockdown. LOL. 
We did get the world's friendliest city this year though.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

beth x said:


> I didn't really give a toss about most of the questions and thought I might as well leave them neutral. I'm a true neutral in just about every moral alignment test.
> 
> I vote for my interests (we are all voters here as soon as we reach 18, it's a compulsory thing). I follow the rule set here in the spirit of the way they are written. I care about harm to others rather than what people's attitudes are. I came out as a libertarian. I'm not libertarian. I fit exactly where I live in a left leaning socialist leaning Labour party with Greens Party voting. I am middle of the road where I live and we have a very popular Premier and a very popular socialist left PM. I voted for them. I am viewed on here as a far-left radical feminist. I think it's probably time the US took a look at itself.
> 
> ...


I didn’t see most of the questions as moral either, but it was helpful to see some people do… which does appear to be a major point of division in US politics.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Squirt said:


> I didn’t see most of the questions as moral either, but it was helpful to see some people do… which does appear to be a major point of division in US politics.


I think the problem there (which has been a problem here with our last federal govt and the media interest) was that some issues like vaccines, gun control and masks were highly politicised and non bipartisan. Here gun control, was a very conservative govt with complete control of senate implemented it after a massacre happened. Even though it was pushed through it was a bipartisan success. Masks and vaccines, here again, implemented by a conservative govt. Abortion bills were also bipartisan here. Every state here (with differing degrees) has access to it. Marriage equality, bipartisan - the referendum was brought through by the conservative party. 

We did have the same kind of people pushing behind rolling back some of those laws through the conservative party and we did have Freedom rallies here like there were worldwide (like the truck stockade in Canada). Issues here are treated more like issues rather than which party is pushing for them and voters don't give a fuck about the Murdoch press coverage here anymore (Fox news here is Sky News). They don't have that sway anymore.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

* *













It says I'm closest to a left-liberal with a high respect to authority. If you and I don't think about it in political terms, this is pretty correct. The video/study it was based on is an interesting watch.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

beth x said:


> EDIT. I should add that Melbourne was the most livable city for many years until we had that lockdown. LOL.
> We did get the world's friendliest city this year though.


That's cool. I live in the US's _drunkest_ city. lol


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

beth x said:


> Women don't try to be males. They don't expect men to be more female either. I don't think any women need a man to be nicer either. Just not to be abusive. As far as an underreported phenomenon there seems not to be a minority. It's a common thing. If there is a DV phone call in Australia every two minutes to police. Then it's not a minority. It happens often and more often the men are the perpetrators of the DV.
> 
> Please just stop victim blaming. You can try your entire life to be risk-averse and still have bad things happen to you. Look at the Just World fallacy. When I asked you to stop gaslighting me about my previous abusive relationship I didn't expect you to avoid posting to me just keep justifying it in another post. I want you to understand what victim blaming is and how it happens. Take a look at the fallacy.
> 
> ...


Not women in general, feminists. They want women to be more like men, and men to be more like women. Feminists want to influence women to be more like men because "we can do it" (good for them, you can do it) and influence men to be more like women because "there's a lot of toxic masculinity out there", toxic masculinity isn't the problem, the lack of masculinity is.

You know who are usually the abusers? Men with inferiority complexes, men who lack masculinity. In my experience, the most masculine men were also the kindest men I've ever seen, because when you are assured you don't see any reason to be cruel to others. Masculinity is that strong guy who helps you get the jar from the top shelf and then opens it, using his strength to help you. They are very masculine men and use their power to help you.

The Nice Guy TM is a lot like a male feminist go going on women's march to "defend the rights of women" and are overly sympathetic to women. They are actually quite predatory, their psychology is 'maybe if I am on their side they will sleep with me'. If you want to find an abuser, that's your best bet.

They think that this way by "being on their side and fighting for their rights" they will get women. Which is the absolutely worst way to go in terms of dating, you should go the opposite direction, making yourself attractive by being more masculine and attractive to women, heck a woman can be attracted to you even if she disagrees with you, or especially if she disagrees with you, there's emotions in that disagreement, and shows you are principled, that you have your own ideas and don't try to patter her or raise her on a pedestal but treat her like a normal person.

At the same time, overly "macho" or "manly" are usually compensating men. Knowing deep inside that they lack masculinity so they need to compensate it with a big outward appearance. Maybe they have a big truck, a sleveless shirt and overall a more crude voice to apperar more masculine. While masculine men feel less insecure about their masculinity therefore they feel more comfortable bringing up their feminine side, including empathy.

For a masculine man who isn't compensating, their feminine side works in contrast with their masculine side. They have both. They don't feel ashamed to bring up their feminine side because they already feel they have their masculine side to back them up so they don't feel in danger of appearing "overly-feminine" if they express their feminine side like liking cats or liking cookies.

Usually, when one gender is too much in one direction, they are usually compensating.

I don't believe that "women don't like men who show emotions", "women don't like men who cry, you have to be stoic, otherwise you're a wuss". Women are even more supportive of men and became closer to them for showing emotions.

However, and this should be noted, if I were a skinny ugly-looking man it would have had the opposite effect, I would indeed really look the less of a man. But when you're already a masculine looking guy, or masculine enough guy, showing emotions is perfectly acceptable and even beneficial.

Of course, there are some women who would indeed see you less of a man if you cry or show emotions, no matter how muscular or well-built you are, otherwise the stereotype wouldn't exist, but these are some women, not all women.

I also like some feminine stuff and everyone is pefectly cool with it. To be noted, some women. Sometimes I've been reported that it's in fact those very same things that make me more attractive. Like, I don't like seeing blood, probably in the top 10 most unmanliest things to do, I really have a reaction to it. I like animals more than the average guy. Probably because they can empathize with you better? I don't know.

But an important note: I've never seen a woman be turned on when a man breaks down and starts crying when a bunch of hoons are trying to mug him + his gf and started sexually assaulting her. So yeah, theres absolutely an element of truth to women don't like wusses who breaks down and show emotions in the wrong time, they're only OK to it being displayed when she's safe, has nothing really to worry about and thought it was cute.

You're saying that "feminists don't expect men to be more female either" but just google "toxic masculinity" and you'll find an overwhelming amount of feminist articles. In fact, they seem to be the ones that overwhelmingly talk about this. All you want is "just not to be abusive", but you end up with men who "just not to be abusive" by doing the opposite of what feminists say men should do.

This was my original point, that men and women play different games. Yes, it's perfectly good and acceptable for you to embrace some feminine traits, but it wouldn't have the same effect on guys if they did it. In the same way you going to the gym and getting ripped would have the same effect on you as it would have on the guys.

Feminists are trying to emasculate men and men don't like it. This is why people like Andrew Tate appear. It's a reactionary movement to feminism if anything.

Masculinity changed a lot in my opinion as well. In fact, I think my very first post on this topic was about that. I disagree with the stereotypes of the 50s but the "new model of man" 2022 is no good either. We have a simp infestation because men stopped learning how to be men. And partially responsable for this is feminism & power over you disguised as personal agency. Never heard 1 man in my life saying "women take our jobs", it's something feminists say that men say but I've never personally heard one man saying. It's them wanting to gain an unfair advantage that seems that people have a problem with.

The way men behave with each other. Abuse is a good way to put it, but thing is, this is something so normal for men it wouldn't even identify as abuse. Like if I were to go and say "I was abused by my boss", "how so?", "I made a mistake with some papers and my boss to and he screamed at me calling me idiot and then told me to get out" I would be the laughing stock of the entire bar. It's just how men deal with each other in general. I would have prefered it otherwise, but alas.

2. Concerning the victim blaming. Sometimes it is objectively your fault. Let's say a truck goes over the speed limit (breaking the law) and you jump in the middle of the road. The truck hit you. Do you think the majority of people are doing to be like "victim blaming" or like "what where you doing in the middle of the road?".

I absolutely agree with you that you can try your entire life to be risk-averse and still have bad things happen to you. Which is why I said that sometimes it's just bad luck. But most of the time it's not bad luck. Most of the time, with the woman being lovestruck by a parasite, that man is full of red flags, red flags bigger than the flag of China, the woman just couldn't see it or didn't want to see it because she loves him.

In fact, that's what my whole argument to you was about. They choose the men who hit them. Do you think that their partner randomly spawned next to the woman or there was a process of flirting, dating and eventual marriage?

The cases were a woman tries to be risk-averse but still ends up in an abusive relationship are rare.

The very fact you brought up the Just World fallacy shows that you totally misunderstand me.

I'm not saying this is fair, I'm saying this is what happens. But we talked about this previously, didn't we?

We've been here before haven't we? You made a similar assumption. I explained you why it's not the case. Then you came back with the same similar assumption again.

I want you to understand that if you think this is a case of Just World fallacy, you should probably read all my posts again, and actually read them, not read them and fill them up with your already existing preconceptions about me. Take a look at your own cognitive biases.

"
I wouldn't say "fault" but I would say "product". It's not like they did this with intention or they wanted to do this to be their "fault". But the result is nonetheless that one. I wasn't looking on the personal side but simply the methodology. Yes, it's the father's fault for being absent, because the mother doesn't know how to be a father, and it's very weird to expect that from her. But the results are the same - men raised by single moms end up being vast majority of serial killers, school shooters, and just angry simps in general because they end up being way more feminine than masculine. They have a lot of idea how to be feminine, from their mothers and teachers, and no idea how to be masculine, for they have nobody to teach them that, and the result is terrible. As opposed to feminist expectations that we need more femininity in this world and less masculinity and the result would be good.

I would argue is it the woman's fault for not knowing how to choose a suitable partner, because she is the one that ends up suffering. The man just came & went, he's probably doing fine. It's the ones who suffer that have to be careful.

If you walk at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood and end up getting robbed. It's the robber's fault for robbing you or your own fault for putting yourself in that position to begin with? of course it's the robber's fault, but at the same time we have to consider that the roober just came & went, he's probably doing fine right now. While you are the one who ended up suffering. And you have your share of blame for walking at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood.

You can't expect robbers not to rob, but you can't expect yourself not to walk at 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood, you have a responsability there. Youcan blame it on him, and it's clearly his fault, but it will not change much, and you are the one who ended up suffering.

I think it's rather dumb to try to control other people than try to control yourself in these scenarios.

By "fault/blame" I mostly mean "the actor that could have avoided it", because if we use blame in a traditional sense the answer is dead obvious the robber. But at the same time, you can't expect robbers not to rob. It's the one who will end up suffering who has the responsability to avoid it therefore "fault/blame" although objectively is not really their fault as they are not the perpetrator, but they put themselves in that position. And yes, sometimes it's innevitable or impossible to predict, I agree, but most of the time it's not. Sometimes it's just bad luck, most of the times it's not.
"

If you have part of the responsability, then you can be part of the solution. If you never assume responsability, like a child, it's just a matter of jumping from an abusive relationship to another:

"
I think it's far easier to teach women how to pick better fathers, than teach men who abandon not to abandon.

And the reason for this is motivation.

Women, like the person getting robbed, have all the motivation in the world not to end up with a shallow boyfriend who leaves them, possible victims of robbery have all the motivation in the world to not get robbed.

By contrast, robbers have all the motivation in the world to in fact rob, because it's beneficial to them, just like abandoning fathers have all the motivation in the world to just sleep with the woman and leave because it's beneficial to them.

In the same way, a man ending up with a gold digger is his fault. Sure, he gold digger is the perpetrator and the man the victim. But: the man could have prevented it, the woman didn't want to prevent it, she wanted to cause it.

None of these are foolproof indeed, but one of them is easier to do, and more beneficial than the other.

If you have 100 women not knowing how to choose a suitable partner, and 100 men knowing how to seduce women but in fact don't give a crap about them. You fix 80% of those men, you're going to have 100 women vs 20 men, so the stats won't change that much. They will simply sleep around with more. You fix 80% of those women, the stats will change a lot. Same I think is true for robbery. If you're a victim you're a victim, it's not a matter of who but when, if it wasn't that guy it was the other guy. As a general tendency speaking rather than just having bad luck (because it happens).

What is causing men to abandon? 90% of the time they didn't want a stable relationship and just wanted to fool the woman. And the woman was guillable enough to fall for it. You just have to look good and be charming and 90% of women will respond positive to you.

When women have an abundance of guys, they are very selective with guys (you can probably relate with that as a woman). Average looking or unattractive guys don't have the same situation. But highly attractive guys have exact the same situation but with women, in reverse, having an abundance of women, not knowing what to pick, and knowing women will always be there for him, but he also wants some sex.

It's not that they want to be mothers in committed relationships for the long haul, I believe no single mom wants to be a single mom. It's that they can't spot bad men, that's what they need to work on. In this sense kids that are raised in single-parent households led by women, is it the woman's fault for not knowing how to choose a suitable partner. Bad actors will always exist, it's up to you to protect from them. Whether we talk about absent fathers or criminals.

Because with blame comes responbility. Sure, you can blame the absent father, and you are right, they have the lion's share of the blame, but it won't change anything, because that situation was in their advantage, they don't want to change, it was a lose-win situation for the woman.

So, those women would protect themselves. Which by default I think it means the population of absent fathers decreases, because there won't be as many single moms anymore. Women who fall to their fuckboy tricks. I agree that it should be worked on both sides, but I think the candle will burn better on one side because women already have the motivation.

What motivation can you offer to the fuckboys to stay with a woman that they've already screwed around with and now have an unwanted child? Keep in mind that they have an abundance of women so they can always find another women and a better one.
"

I can understand disagrement. But I can't understand how you can read the same thing I wrote and get a totally different message. If you got my message and disagreed, totally fine, but you seem to have gotten the wrong message despite of what I said.

Gaslighting you? this just confirms what I suspected above. You think this is personal? it's not. I have nothing against you. In fact, how was I supposed to know you were in an abusive relationship? really? I can understand why you're so passionate and personal about this now, but there's no way I could have known that. So gaslighting? more like cognitive dissonance.

In fact, I've never made this discussion about yourself or personal to begin with, you're the only one who did it, like due to preconceptions.

(This is the reason I didn't reply to your previous post, didn't realise the subject is personal and touchy for you)

If this subject is too personal for you we can stop, I understand it may have an emotional toll on you, I see this as an interesting discussion not as a means to inflict pain on someone I don't even know and didn't do any wrong. Say you want to stop talking about this and we just stop, no strings attached.

I'm talking purely theroetical here, in this previous case I mentioned:


> I was at a bar, and there was this barista who would keep being hit on by drunk men (you've probably seen the movies, exactly like that). They would tell her "hey beautiful" or try to be funny but in a domineering kind of way with smugging jokes of superiority, trying to impress her I assume. I didn't care. I had a girlfriend, I did not are about hitting on her, I was only there for a drink.
> 
> So eventually I ended up talking to her, not sure how it happened but I didn't make an advance towards it. Probably because I was the only guy in that bar who wasn't trying to hit on her, can't tell.
> 
> ...


I would never tell the barista "yeah, you picked him", even though she did. It makes her feel bad and it's not helping.

There's a world difference between an impersonal discussion and a personal discussion. I see ours was personal although I thought it was impersonal.

3. If I remember well, you also strongly disagreed with this part, that women have some privilege because the way men treat them:


> Men are using glvoes with women. Exactly because they are women. This is true both in physical fights and business department. The women may be unaware of this (those who have privilege, it's invisible to them) but all men treat women different than men simply because they are women, better, more nicely.
> 
> Now, if a woman rises up to be "the man", "the alpha" the insert adjective here. At some point a man is going to be like "gloves off" and knock her out, either physically or metaphorically in the business enviroment.
> 
> ...





> It's not about how men/women want to be treated, it's about the fact that women ARE treated with gloves.
> 
> There are women who go all out on men, like entitled Karens for example, and then because they piss off men past the boiling point the gloves are off. And then when they get the same treatment men get from men start complaining that "men bad", "patriarchy". You wanted to get in the ring? Stay in the ring. This is the ring.
> 
> ...





> What is wrong with the fact that women are treated with gloves? isn't it better? I've seen what men do when the gloves are off. Because of this I'm okay with the way things are and I accept women having this privilege. It's necessary for them because of their lower strength and generally not accostumed with men's competitive world. If you're a woman, wouldn't you want to be treated nicer at your workplace simply because you're a woman? people treating you better? with gloves?
> 
> If there is an escalation of aggression, wouldn't you want people not hit you exactly because you're a woman? I know you want, that's why you mention domestic abuse as an issue. Yeah, "but there is such thing as domestic abuse!" you are talking about the exceptions, I'm talking about the general rule. Now, we haven't managed to convince 100% of men that hitting women is bad because it hurts them, but using domestic abuse as a counter-argument to this isn't really a counter-argument. Men in general don't hit women, because they are women, if you as a woman manage to marry someone who beats you, I'm sorry but the vast majority of men and the partiarchy can't be held responsable. Just like you aren't responsable for all women.
> 
> ...


Your response to this was domestic abuse, which fair argument, but:


> Women being treated with gloves means what I said it means in the original comment. Cases of violence against women doesn't mean or imply that women treated with gloves doesn't exist.
> 
> Cases of abusive husbands (which by the way, the woman picked) does not change the fact that both in physical fights and business department men are using glvoes with women. Treating them way nicer than their male counterparts simply because they are women. There are tons of cases where you would get punched in the face for what you said/did, not if you're a woman. And tons of cases where you would be treated better in the worldplace simply because you're a woman.
> 
> ...


Just because some men are abusive, it doesn't mean all men are abusive. For most men that original point holds true.

Your main point of disagreement seems to be my insistance that "women make bad choices". Of course they are the victim there, but they do make bad choices. Being the victim doesn't mean you didn't make a bad choice. Absolving you of all agency. (like the guy who jumped in the middle of the road, even if the truck was speeding)


> So whose fault is women being with partners who beat them? Society? If we talk about a place in the world with forced marriage like parts of Africa, Middle East and India I'm 100% with you here, society is at fault. But in the west, can you make the same argument that society is at fault? where men and women can marry and date whoever they want and it's their choice. Women have to agree to date men, women have to agree to marry men, etc. They can easily say no and avoid these people (there are cases of stalkers but those are rare, most domestic abuse it's not stalkers, there you can make the case of no fault of their own, but it's a minority). Not all men are aggressive brutes, but if you only date aggressive brutes, that's no fault of the majority of men or even the patriarchy.
> 
> All genders have bad apples. If you only pick the bad apples it's really no one's fault but your own. It's not like a serial killer killed you in the middle of the street and you had 0% control over it. Or how is the patriarchy responsible for you only picking the men that are bad?


If all genders have bad apples, and you pick the bad apples. How do you also not have part of the blame? It's like going to the market and picking only the rotten meat and then complaining that "all meat is rotten" or "the shopkeeper tricked me". Well, you picked the rotten meat, the shopkeeper may have tricked you, but you might as well not picked the rotten meat.

It's like I said here:


> Allow me to summarize my mental gymnastics:
> 
> You were robbed in the middle of the daylight on the street, 3 PM in a park with a lot of people, there's no way you could have predicted this, just bad luck.
> You were robbed in the middle of the night in a back alley, 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood, because you decided you can go through there alone, it's fine.
> ...


This is a clear counter-argument to what you said right here _"Please just stop victim blaming. You can try your entire life to be risk-averse and still have bad things happen to you"_ before you made that argument. (in fact, you made that argument previously and this was my response).

Yes, you are right in principle, that if you try to risk-adverse and have bad things still happen this is no fault of your own. However, abusive husbands or domestic abuse cases are not cases where you try to risk-adverse. If anything, you're willingly or unwillingly blind to the red flags because they are hot.

It's more a case of "robbed in the middle of the night in a back alley, 3 AM in a bad neighbourhood" (what were you doing there?) and less a case of robbed in the middle of the daylight on the street, 3 PM in a park with a lot of people (no fault of your own). That was not risk-adversion at all.

Why is why my proposed solution is to teach women how to spot bad men. Rather than tell already nice men to be extra nice because some men are bad (and hot) and the women made bad choices.

What happens with women who don't have this mindset? they don't get abused in the first place.


> This mindset of "I don't need to protect myself, they need to learn to be better, why should I learn to spot the dangers when I can just blame it on them?" will only ensure that you are the next victim. I can guarantee (and in my experience when talking face to face with women who were domestically abused, like that barista I told you about, that was the case) that women who are domestically abused have this mindset of "the man and only the man is at fault", because if they wouldn't have that mindset, they wouldn't be in that situation to being with next to that abusive man, they would have long left him if even dated him in the first place.


In fact, those are the women who don't get into abusive relationships.

The women who don't get attracted to a bad guy just because he is hot. The women who are more realistic. The women who know that you can't have an anaconda for a pet and expect him not to eat you. The women who know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Those women, and I've seen cases, are actually disgusted by bad boys, not attracted to them. It's like they know, where as others don't.

I'm not saying "go for the nerd". Women still want masculine men after all (in spite of what feminists say), this is why we have cases of "too many bad boys being with women" not "too many nerds being with women".

But it's clear that when given a choice between nerds & jocks. One who will is more of the traditional boyfriend which chocolate and such, bringing gifts like flowers & chocolate and love. "Puppy love" so to speak. And another who is hot. A subset of women will pick the latter. So how is this not the consequences of their action?

The jocks are usually way better looking than the nerds. And in personality they are more dynamic were as the nerds are more nice and quiet and in their place. They are dynamic where as the other is more of the traditional boyfriend. So you could say that looks matter more than character. Who decides that? the women who pick them.

I've seen my share of nice guys (non-TM) who would make great boyfriends on paper, they have good paying jobs, are nice, are decent, and respectful. But couldn't get a girlfriend. As well as of assholes who would make terrible boyfriends, husbands, everything, yet have tons of women to pick from. And often take advantage of that, at the cost of the woman.

Whose fault is it that women pick them?

It's like men picking a psychopath and then complaining that she is a psychopath. At least psychopaths (with diagnostic) are far more sneaky than bad boys who are usually pretty on the face. Ever seen women posting on Instagram stuff like "nice guys are boring, bad boys are fun", yeah, wonder where that comes from.

In high school, who gets all the girls? The jocks or the nerds? the nerds are better boyfriends on paper. The world is just an extension of that.

Most of those abusive guys who end up with women who earn more than them, are those bad boy guys who are parasitic but women stay with them because they are attracted to them and love that.

(Yes, it makes a lot of sense for me that








Women are more likely to experience domestic violence when they out-earn their partner


A groundbreaking Australian study has found women are 35 per cent more likely to be subject to domestic violence if they earn more money than their male partner.




www.sbs.com.au




In fact, I were surprised if it was otherwise.
Becuase there's usually a hot bad boy "kept" by a woman.
Heck if you think men are the biggest simps you should see these cases, it's been shocking.
Not once, I've seen women being with their hot unemployed abusive boyfriend, sometimes alt-right, because they love him.
It's quite sad.
So again, big contrast between what they do and what they say.)

What you find shocking and outrageous, I find perfectly explainable. If the data fits the theory, that means the theory must be right.

Or do you think they were very nice and respectful men, like the man from 50 shades of grey, must be good looking to and know how to treat women right, and then suddenly one day a switch went off and he became this abusive terrible husband that she had no idea of and couldn't recognise?

So "women get abused, men bad!", not all kids of men bad, the ones you pick men bad.

It's like incel forums complaining about gold-diggers but gender-reversed.

A campaign to "stop abuse" would hardly have any effect, because abusers know exactly what they are doing, it's not like they suddenly wake up one day and are like "I was wrong wrong? I didn't knew it! damn, thanks to this ad now I know it!".

But marginalization. That would work. If those men would have no female victims because of their abusive ways. Because that would work and women would avoid them. We would have less domestic abusive cases.

But there are some women who want a bad boy who is aggressive militaristic even openly alt-right in some cases, but not be bad with them. It's like wanting a anaconda for a pet and expect him not to eat you. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, I think the solution in general is that women should pick better partners. They pick the bad boys at the expense of the nerds and then complain about the results.

I don't think that's the men's fault or victim blaming. If anything, the only person with 0% agency here are the men who are kind and not abusive but end up being put in the same bucket as bad boys because a woman picked bad boys and ended up getting hurt because of this.

Like, how is this "Joe the Nerd's" fault?

In high school, who gets all the girls? The jocks or the nerds? the nerds are better boyfriends on paper. The world is just an extension of that.

I've seen my share of nice guys who would make great boyfriends on paper, they have good paying jobs, are nice, are decent, and respectful. But couldn't get a girlfriend. As well as of assholes who would make terrible boyfriends, husbands, everything, yet have tons of women to pick from. And often take advantage of that, at the cost of the woman.

The jocks are usually way better looking than the nerds. And in personality they are more dynamic were as the nerds are more nice and quiet and in their place. They are dynamic where as the other is more of the traditional boyfriend which chocolate and such, bringing gifts like flowers & chocolate and love. So you could say that looks matter more than character. Who decides that? the women who pick them.

You told me I don't understand women, their experience, families. I think you don't understand men, their experience, families. That seems to be your blind spot.

Not all men are bad abusers, and at the same time, they can't be held responsable for some women's poor choices.

If you are 1 woman, and have to pick between 10 men. And pick the worst man possible. Who domestically abuses you. Is this the fault of the 9 other men? should the 9 other men be better men because you made the wrong choice? The same thing applies gender-reversed.

If you're 1 man, and have to pick between 10 women. And pick the worst woman possible. Who is it other women's fault that you picked a gold-digger? what did they do wrong? are all women gold diggers? no, you just made a poor choice. The responsability is on you alone.

This is why I said that Andrew Tate has a bias against women:


> A great example of this is Andrew Tate, Andrew Tate is right about a lot of things, except when it comes to women. And I think that makes a lot of sense, he is a playboy millionare, a lot of women are going to be attracted to him, and a lot of women are going to be gold diggers going for him. So that's the average woman he will experience in his life. As such, a lot of his opinions are based on that average woman he experiences because that's what he thinks is the average woman. Ie, his own status blocks him for seeing women who are not like that because women who are not like that would not go for him.
> 
> Since we were on this subject previously, a woman who wants a long-term commited relationship with a loving partner and to have a family with 2 kids, a supportive husband and all that stuff, a woman with depth and sensitivity and care who don't "whore" herself to be with Tate. Or a woman who is not a gold digger and doesn't come for money. How many women like that do you think Andrew Tate sees on a regular basis? my guess is 0. His perception is built on the women he interacts with because of his status, not on the women in general. Short version is that Tate is a magnet to gold diggers because he's rich, and his perception is going to be schewed by that. But he's right about most other things though. As said originally, you can agree on some things and disagree on some things with a person, we don't do that anymore. We're either all-in or all-out, live a hive mind. This is not good or constructive in any way.


I'd be perfectly fine if you'd understand my point and disagree. But you don't seem to understand my point. I tried to be as in-depth as possible but that doesn't seem to make it. I'll try to only give short answers from now on maybe that will clear up the confusion.

4. All of this discussion started from the feminine-looking man (the points are interconnected).

Heck, my original post was about this:


> And the majority of boys have a predominantly female influence at school.
> Maybe toxic masculinity isn't the problem, maybe the lack of masculinity is.
> 
> And this makes a lot of sense. Have you ever noticed how the vast majority of: serial killers, school shooters, and just angry simps in general are way more feminine than masculine?
> ...


And there was quite the discussion about it:


> Furthemore, it was never a denigration of feminine traits, my last bulletpoint is a testament to that.
> 
> If you want a denigration of traits, look at feminists when they talk about masculine traits.
> 
> ...





> Pretty much spot on:
> It interferes with being competitive -> True, not being competitive at all makes you fail in life, especially when you are a man and are given different cards.
> Can't be cool (lol, K-Pop bands proves this isn't true) -> as weird as it sounds, K-pop bands are very masculine, they just are feminine looking. I'm talking about behavior here not looks.
> It interferes with being sexy -> Yes, a man who is like a woman in behavior is not sexy. Who is the judge of that? women. Not their words but their actions. Of course women would love and defend them as a BFF but most of the time it's these men who don't get any women and end up frustrated simps who eventually do bad stuff because they are frustrated with their lot in life.
> ...





> So the law.
> 
> Yes, that's fair. But I would argue that already happens.
> 
> ...





> Would you argue that being raised by a single mother and living in a country where the teachers are majority women does not lead to a lack of masculinity in men? (because they have no father figure or men to learn from?) Or is your argument that the said lack of masculinity does not lead to serial killers, school shooters, and just angry simps? Why not?
> 
> I did provide my reasoning on why that is the case on all that _"You grow up with a female-predominated enviroment around you, they teach you feminist stuff, you grow up frustrated because whatever you do is not working"_ part. What is your reasoning for why that isn't the case? and what do you think happens instead? And why do you think that is the case?
> 
> ...





> ook at a top list of serial killers, do the vast majority of them seem like masculine men to you? most of them have the archetype of Jeffery Dahmer. While simps, yeah, Elliot Rodger is the king of the simps TM. How often do you see very masculine serial killers or simps like Andrew Tate? not many, because those already have their lot in life pretty good due to their masculinity.
> 
> My evidence is the word of a professional in this domain.
> 
> ...


That there is something _wrong _with a feminine-looking man.

Why is there something wrong with a feminine-looking man? What is wrong with that? When there's for example gay people who seem to do quite well? When there are all sorts of folks that exist out there, it doesn't make them dangerous or sick for men to have more feminine features? What can be done with that belief? (sort of rebranding if you will)

I argue that, there is something _wrong _with a feminine-looking man that it sucks for them to be this way, they get negative feedback from life because of this, rejection, outcasting, etc; and then they become either angry at the world or double down in their simp ways. Either way, both cases only them stand to lose. Well, not only them, sometimes one may go full Elliot Rogers and the whole world will have to suffer because of them.


> It's the men's fault for treating them this way? yeah, but they get mainly rejection from women. I don't think any of them would have problems if men would hate them but women love them, but they don't.
> 
> Sure, they may love them "as a friend", but that's like your boss not giving you salary because he loves you as a friend. But then the argument goes "they are not entitled to sex", yes, they aren't, but they want it, and the way they behave, this feminine-looking way, isn't giving them any sex, so they hate it, and get mad at it, and then at the world.
> 
> ...


Squirt made the good argument that "I don't think the solution is to go back to some old fantasy about "what it means to be a man" or whatever and encourage boys to be ashamed of what this fantasy deems as "too girly." I think we need to move forward about it, and stop being so judgmental if folks don't fit into some binary mold. Jumping on a bandwagon to cast out men who don't fit a certain mold isn't helping us to stop the Elliot Rogers, if that even has anything to do with his motivations."

Basically, society is at fault for treating them this way. I agree, but at the same time acknolwedge that there is a society.

This sounds good in theory. But did you ever date a guy like Elliot Rogers? I don't know, but I'm going to roll the dice and assume no. I wonder why, maybe because he was too feminine?

Andrew Tate said "life is a competition and women pick the winners". I wouldn't go that far and that cutthroat, but there some seed of truths in what he is saying.

Life isn't a competition, we're not out there fighting each other, but women do pick the winners. Are you a hot man? women want you. Are you a feminine-looking man? women don't want you. You don't get to have relationships success, it sucks. But at least you get to have female compassion, they will tell you that they "love you as a friend" and get hostile towards you if you make a move towards them because you "expect entitlement to sex, how dare you?".

I'm hot, I expect entitlement to sex, and I usually get it. Women seem to have no problem with this, in fact it's them who want it. What's the difference between me and that guy? looks.

So yeah, it's very easy to see "we can all be fine an dandy" but that won't work out for them. It won't even work out as a consolation prize.

It's a grey area from your perspective as a woman because you don't know what women respond to because you've never been put in the situation of having to attract women, and seeing what works. You were put in the positions of stating what you think your preferences are that could be very different from reality. What attracts you and what you think attracts you could be 2 very different things.

It's like me talking about what makes a woman attractive to a man. I don't know! I just see a woman and find her attractive. I was never put in the position of being a woman and having to figure out what makes men attractive to me. I'm as clueless about this as you are about the above paragraph, this is why it's a grey area for you.

Well yes, _no one_ is entitled to a job _or_ sex, it's a privilege not a right. You have to earn it. Do your job to earn it.

TL-DR: how do you earn it? by not being a feminine man.

To clear some things up:

I do think that women are in general more manipulative & men in general more aggressive. But I don't think it's black&white.

Squirt: "I've no reason to assume men can't be manipulative, or that women are born manipulative, or that women can't be aggressive, or men are always aggressive. There is too much grey area for this to be useful to argue about."

Men can be manipulative, or that women aren't born manipulative, women can be aggressive, or men aren't always aggressive. It's just that on average, women are more manipulative and men more aggressive. I agree that there's a lot of shades of grey, but I was talking about generalities here.

Basically, take all of this with a big of "generally". Because black&white cases don't exist.

What does it mean in practical terms? You want to get someone fired?


> I meant that women are more manipulative in that specific sense. Because they are more in tune with social roles and social dynamics than men. They have learned to rely on connections to "get their job done". Being sneaky about it if you well. Were as men rely on strength.
> 
> They hate a man and want them out of their company? They aren't going to use physical strength or intimation to get things done. That won't work. They are going to use relations, connection. Maybe talk with a co-worked about how bad they are, spreading a rumor, telling their boss, even being a snitch about it, making something up. Using connections to get things done, using their influence, women are way better at this game than men are.
> 
> ...


It just means women are better at this, it doesn't mean automatically that they're evil.

Basically, we all expose our bad side in different ways. That doesn't mean there won't be men more manipulative than women, or women more aggressive than men. But on average, this is how it is.

Of course women evolved to be more manipulative. They have to be. Especially when men have all the strength.


> Men are more aggressive by their nature. Do you agree or disagree with that? My shot in the dark is that you agree, and don't have any issue with it. Why is it for you perfectly okay and acceptable to morally accept that men are more aggressive by their nature but find it offensive that women are more manipulative by their nature? Women use connections and play the reputation game far often than men. It's in their nature, and it kind of had to be, because they don't have the physical strength of men to compensate for it.


If you can't beat them directly, use your connections and beat them at the reputation game. You kind of have to when you don't have power and can't take them out directly.

I don't think women are the problem (as you may be inclined to think that I think), I think that lack of masculinity is the problem.

Squrt: "For brevity, I think the thing that really stood out in your description of that idea was the absence of a role for men at all. Like, because single moms exist and schoolteachers are often women, men simply don't have any influence anymore. Are they ghosts in the world? They bear no responsibility for the problem; and this explanation seems to argue that it is women's fault that men are messed up. It is up to a woman to choose a good partner, not a man to be a good partner. It seemed like all the blame for any dysfunction of boys was placed on women and their roles in raising them, teaching them in schools, about choosing partners, etc."

No, I argue that it's lack of masculinity that's messed up. And feminists trying to repress that masculinity (despite being something that they themselves want).

How are men repressing it if they want it?

I don't know if this is a good comparison. As a man you want to feel "strong", as a woman you want to feel "pretty". What if you were told as a woman your entire life that you want to be strong, muscles, armpits, hair, whatever, that you have to be strong, so you follow the social norm and what society "instructs" you, but deep down inside you want to feel pretty.

And how are feminists repressing it if they want it?

Like this:


> Heck, I saw a funny video recently: There was this leftist vegan girl who said she always had bad boy types, and she just couldn't conceive a child (willingly), and then she met this guy and she wasn't into him at all (soft friendly guy, smallish too), until she later decided she wanted to try it anyway and eventually got the much wanted child with her openly alt-right man. And then a comedian said: officially they are leftist vegan 'goody goody' girls, but at the same time (when they are horny esp) they want misogynistic bad men.
> 
> Whose fault was that that woman was senseless lol? She's probably going to be just another victim of domestic abuse, but hey, she likes bad boys. This exact woman was of the opinion in the future there would be only nerdy men. The comedian was like: all this violence its disgusting... fuck me! Like "yeah, you're a bad boy, and I generally don't like that, but I just make an exception for you, your violence disgusts me, want to screw around?".
> 
> ...


You can notice the stark contrast between her declarations and her actions.

We live in a society telling us to be feminine, we as men, more than ever now, more than was told 100 years ago, more than was told 50 years ago. Women are told to be men (female power!) and men are told to be women (simp infestation) lol. Testosterone is at an all level low in modern society (actual study on this, not a metaphor). And yet, I seem to be doing pretty good living as a masculine man. And this is coming from a masculine-looking man who has quite some feminine traits by nature.

Where as when I look at the men who are overly-feminine or way too feminine, yeah, their life just sucks. Not only on the internet like the skinny guy with glasses who is emasculated and then angry at the world for being emasculated. Or the fat nice guy with a fedora who has class, tips his fedora and finds himself charming, like women would be wet when he tips his fedora. Or simply the fat nice guy who is generally a nice dude with not much going on, he's nice but plain, with not much going on. It's like society teaches us wrong how to be men, not only doesn't teach us anything, but what they teach us teaches us wrong, and I'm saying this in terms of the results we get as in life satisfaction from behaving as society tells us to behave or behaving otherwise.

And being more masculine, more like men. They want it. Women want it. I see it as a win-win.

As promised above, I will keep my answers short from now on, maybe trying to provide a full picture isn't the way to go, a lot of things could get confusing.



Squirt said:


> @Dezir I'm just not convinced that "masculine" or "feminine" presentation is a driving factor (as someone also argued earlier) for issues like feeling a lack of autonomy/respect in society or doing well at a job or being able to get a partner. I've had a bit of change in perspective forming over this issue the past few days... that many of these polarities and dysfunctions might relate more to cultural changes around maturity, and problems of perhaps a delayed emotional/social maturity and opportunity due to changes in parenting, lifestyles, values and economic problems in affluent countries (for both men and women, but which may be affecting them differently). There is a lot to it, though. Some researchers have even coined a term for a between stage between childhood and adulthood: "emerging adulthood."
> 
> The Changing Economics and Demographics of Young Adulthood: 1975-2016 (census.gov)
> 
> ...


Why aren't you conviced? Sounds like a weird question I know, I did explain some of my reasoning, like what happens to feminine men, can you offer me some examples or arguments why you think that is not the case or you don't disagree but don't think it's that significant?

In fact, I think my OP mentioned how this leads to a lack of autonomy/respect in society or doing well at a job or being able to get a partner, so as weird as it sounds, why aren't you conviced?

This is not a question like "you should be convinced!". Everyone has their own ideas and opinions. And everyone can believe whatever they want, it's their opinion. (heck, I've seen more useless debates causing people to get personal in my life). I'm just trying to get to the bottom of our cause of disagreement on it.

It's your opinion, each to their own, I'm saying that so you don't get the sense that I ask "Why aren't you conviced?" in an aggressive way but rather in an analyitical way.

I see your point, interesting, but can you be more specific in practice? what do you practially mean in a day by day basis?

Being respectful is not. Being a nerd is because nerds are far more similar to women than to the average man.

I agree that my example of the vegan girl was also really immature behavior, but nonetheless they exist, and we have to work with what exists.

Good point "maybe you see a "lack of men" because both men and women have become delayed in leading more adult lives and don't have a clear idea of what that even means or ability to do so until well into their 30s". But couldn't it be both? I mean, this is cleary a factor. But you see some 18 years old boys more masculine than 40 years old simps.

I see, it's not 43% but 21%.









The Changing Profile of Unmarried Parents


One-in-four parents living with a child in the United States today are unmarried, up from 7% in 1968. A growing share of unmarried parents are cohabiting partners.




www.pewresearch.org





But the school being dominated by women still stands.

The natural question is, why do men end up that bad if they have so much feminine influence?

You should expect the opposite, right?









How Have Men Changed After Generations of Being Raised by Single Mothers?


There is no better time than the midpoint between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day to set the record straight about the impact of Mom and...




melmagazine.com





Well, yes, that's the reasoning I went by: Living with his mom makes a boy more feminine, because a boy doesn't have his biological father raising him in the home, there are no male influences in his life.

He doesn't have a father figure. Feminine traits when you also have masculine traits isn't a problem. It's lack of masculine traits and only feminine traits that's a problem.

That's why I reject the feminist message that "there's a lot of toxic masculinity out there", toxic masculinity isn't the problem, the lack of masculinity is.


----------



## Plusless (Aug 19, 2020)

Squirt said:


> You can’t productively validate people’s negative experiences and address distortions (distortions like the whole world is against me) with further exaggerated, generalized antagonistic claims that purport the whole world is against you. You might be successful by appealing to self-righteous anger, but it isn’t really solving anything.





> Me:
> Society isn`t some homogeneous blob, both women and men can feel like outcasts and have their emotions around that be valid. *That doesn`t mean that all beliefs born out of those emotions are valid.
> 
> Validating those feelings isn`t the same as reinforcing the belief that no one wants them, it is validating that the actions that first caused those feelings are real and that the issues around it should be looked at, which serves as a gateway to fixing any possible distorted beliefs related to the emotions through this thing called communication.* We arrive back to the first mention I made around that circular logic where you are claiming men asking for help is manipulative.


There is a whole job meant for validating peoples negative experiences and addressing distortions through similar methods.
"can`t productively" They are just beyond help because of feeling unwanted?

The status quo is that they feel that they have a problem, and you see approaching that possible problem through communication "not productive". That is dismissal and avoidance, that is "not solving anything".



> If there really is a class where boys are asked to apologize for crimes they didn’t commit, that absolutely needs to be shut down. I’ve never heard of such a thing and that’s fucked up.
> 
> I admit it is hard to tell through your outrage what the content of this class actually was and how people agreed to it. Where I live, people will picket and get pissed off if there is ever any discussion about sex or relationships in school, even like… how to talk about your feelings, lol. So it is hard to imagine where something like that wouldn’t spark mass protests, especially being clearly unethical.


Mass protests? Like the one that J.P is "leading"? MRA and all the small reactions across the world all just nothing according to you? Just born out of mass hysteria?
When these things become normalized the noise won`t be an indicator.

First one was a mandatory assignment in middle school, we had to go over the "predatory behaviors" we all had by association to patriarchy. Nothing was done with the complaints.
Second one was a visiting lecturer, her lecture (with mandatory attendance) about the effects of patriarchal structures also included men (yes, ALL) being responsible for genital mutilation by association to patriarchy.
I can also add "small" things like genocide, slavery, mass murder, domestic violence, colonialism, and multiple wars to that list if you want. At this point it would probably be easier to explain to you what people haven`t claimed that I`m responsible for by association to patriarchy, and all of these ideas I`ve mentioned have been presented in public as reality through multiple different people.



> About feeling shame over your sex… I feel that way about women being victims, and how distressing that was to learn, because I didn’t want to be weak or easy to harm. I would not tolerate anyone who says a dude is naturally a rapist or some shit… and I think any sentiment like that gets worse when you add ethnicity into it. When I was in grade school, I had a “boyfriend” who was black in an all white school, and I was told by other girls to stay away from him because “black men rape their women.” I was 7 years old, and even then was like, wtf messed up idea is that and where did you get it? Both racist and sexist garbage coming out of the mouths of children.
> 
> So yeah, I do think something like that is distressing.


Yes, some groups have faced way more gruesome and horrible treatment, but the existence of those issues cannot remove other problems.



> Yet, there are million ways Peterson could have addressed sexism against men that would be more accurate and helpful, but he didn’t. There are a lot of other things about it, like how his “points” were inspired by a majority of men attending his talks about the Bible. I doubt he actually did any surveys to see why men attended. He doesn’t know why if he didn’t. I suspect was he after clicks more than anything with that video, and like I said, he’s learned that being bombastic and inflammatory works.


J.P has thousands of people latching onto him for help, and he also feels the benefits of being the leader like getting all the shit thrown at him.
Most people would start to crumble under that.



> EDIT:
> 
> I do need to call this out. I don't know where you got this idea from anything I said. Why is this so hard to understand? Saying that JP was being manipulative in a video is not even remotely the same as "men asking for help is manipulative."
> 
> I don't think you could escape if you're compelled to twist my words into a trap like that.





> that they are victims and outcasts who are unwanted by society *(any more than anyone else)*


Men can be victims according to you.


> *if they validate his message, it validates the message that boys are indeed somehow outcasts/unwanted. If they reject it, then it makes them look like they are turning away people in need. It's manipulative.*


The criteria for manipulation in your text is the double-bind of validating or denying.
Asking for help ALWAYS puts people into the double-bind of either validation or rejection.
Therefore this logic of "manipulation" can be applied to all people they ask help from, regardless of the possibility that they are really unwanted which you admit to be possible.

Logically there is little to none correlation with the double-bind and manipulation, yet you still side with "manipulation" even though you admit that men can be unwanted. That is unconscious bias, a distorted belief, cognitive dissonance.
It is the equivalent of saying "Yeah, women can have problems, but those women are just hysterical." Do you find that dismissal offensive? Why would it not be offensive when done to men? I`m sure you mean no harm with that, but it still is a dismissal without valid reason.

A universe working with that logic is one where you can deny the existence of the needs of every boy or man by just wishing it to be true = men asking for help being manipulative. How do you think they respond to that overflowing distrust in your words? The answer is with either distrust or feeling unwanted.

I`m sure that distrust in you is based on something real, men do absolutely horrible things to women all the time. But that doesn`t give you the right to write off a group of people like that, it only further feeds the cycles of distrust.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Well honestly, building on this topic: I often feel like any time I bring up my guy issues, like being falsely accused of stuff by females as I have been multiple times, being treated like a criminal, being feared when I'm just going about my day, or you know, any guy things like that that most women can't relate to; I know there's other guy issues too, but this is the most obvious stuff from my experience......But anyways, as I was saying, I often feel like when I bring up guy issues that some people's attitude about it is that I shouldn't talk about these things because it means I'm somehow against women. Nooo, I'm just talking about my own issues which are relevant to my life. Can't I do that? Anyways, that's just kinda how it feels to me.


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

Another thing is that I'm partially sorry for the wrongs men have done and continue to do. I say _partially_ because its only a result of the guilt trip that is put on all men, which I can't help but feel sometimes. But its only _partially_ because at the same time I don't think I should have to apologize simply for being born with a penis. I never had a choice, you know? I can only try to be virtuous myself; I can't control all men both alive and dead; I can only sometimes discourage certain behaviors in men.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Plusless said:


> There is a whole job meant for validating peoples negative experiences and addressing distortions through similar methods.
> "can`t productively" They are just beyond help because of feeling unwanted?
> 
> The status quo is that they feel that they have a problem, and you see approaching that possible problem through communication "not productive". That is dismissal and avoidance, that is "not solving anything".
> ...


I agree, you my feel wronged out of something that objectively was your fault. However, you feel wronged, that feeling is there, that feeling is valid. It may be the belief behind the feeling that isn't valid but the feeling itself is valid and I see no productive endeavor in invalidating people.

Even if you're wrong, invalidating your life and your experiences won't help, if anything, it will have the opposite effect.

"we had to go over the "predatory behaviors" we all had by association to patriarchy". WTF? If you treat people like criminals, eventually they will become criminals.

"her lecture (with mandatory attendance) about the effects of patriarchal structures also included men (yes, ALL) being responsible for genital mutilation by association to patriarchy". One of my main issues with feminism. As said above, blaming all men for something a small minority of men does.

This will backfire.

"it would probably be easier to explain to you what people haven`t claimed that I`m responsible for by association to patriarchy", you're a CIS while male, what more there is to say?

"some groups have faced way more gruesome and horrible treatment, but the existence of those issues cannot remove other problems". Yep, just because someone has it worse, it doesn't mean that someone doesn't have it bad, usually it's called whataboutism.

"J.P has thousands of people latching onto him for help, and he also feels the benefits of being the leader like getting all the shit thrown at him.
Most people would start to crumble under that." Yep, huge respect for J.P for that, because of his position, he has made himself the main target of feminism, he's the next "orange man bad".

So many feminists articles filled with half-truths, anything to throw dirt at him. It's clear they hate him, which means he's good for society.

But I want to address Squirt's main point:


> Yet, there are million ways Peterson could have addressed sexism against men that would be more accurate and helpful, but he didn’t. There are a lot of other things about it, like how his “points” were inspired by a majority of men attending his talks about the Bible. I doubt he actually did any surveys to see why men attended. He doesn’t know why if he didn’t. I suspect was he after clicks more than anything with that video, and like I said, he’s learned that being bombastic and inflammatory works.


How could he have addressed sexism against men in a way that would be more accurate and helpful? 

For the Bible comparison, I don't know how accurate is that. Most of J.P's audience isn't even religious. Seems more like a tolerated part "yeah, this guy says a lot of great things but he also has some religious BS" than his main selling point. It seems like he is trying to insert religion into it where as most of his audience would rather not.

Yes, I agree, he twisted your words into saying "men asking for help is manipulative" with that, not cool.

But the question remains: You said that J.P. was being manipulative, how was he being manipulative? What specific part about him made him feel manipulative? Maybe he really believes what he's saying, just saying, is that manipulative?

Well, yes, that's his message TM "*boys are indeed somehow outcasts/unwanted*". That's what he genuinely believes in. How is that manipulative? If people are "*are turning away people in need*", well, then they are indeed turning away from people in need, "*it makes them look like*" because it really is like that.

The only way I could see this being twisted into manipulative is starting from the premise that J.P. is full of BS and a bad actor. Which if you believe that ok, I'm not going to deny your opinion, but why do you believe that?



Flabarac Brupip said:


> Another thing is that I'm partially sorry for the wrongs men have done and continue to do. I say _partially_ because its only a result of the guilt trip that is put on all men, which I can't help but feel sometimes. But its only _partially_ because at the same time I don't think I should have to apologize simply for being born with a penis. I never had a choice, you know? I can only try to be virtuous myself; I can't control all men both alive and dead; I can only sometimes discourage certain behaviors in men.


This "I shouldn't talk about these things because it means I'm somehow against women" is exactly what feminism is all about. Feminism in practice. Feminism in theory is about equality.

Much like communism, sounds good in theory, not so great in practice.

"I'm partially sorry for the wrongs men have done and continue to do". I'm not. I feel bad that those things have happened. I wished that they didn't have happened. But I won't be guilt tripped by association by feminists just because I'm some "CIS white male" meaning I've done some horrible things by association. I had no part in doing those things.

Religion was trying to do the same to women "women tricked Adam into biting the apple, women bad!". And what's the feminists response to this? being exactly the same but gender-reversed? yeah, I don't think you're the better person, I just think you are more of the same.

But its only _partially_ because at the same time I don't think I should have to apologize simply for being born with a penis". You should not have to apologize simply for being born with a penis.

Exactly, you can only try to be virtuous yourself; you can't control all men both alive and dead; you can only sometimes discourage certain behaviors in men.

Imagine if we were to start punishing Germans today in 2022 for what they did in 1945. Every person with good sense would be like "that's stupid".


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Flabarac Brupip said:


> Well honestly, building on this topic: I often feel like any time I bring up my guy issues, like being falsely accused of stuff by females as I have been multiple times, being treated like a criminal, being feared when I'm just going about my day, or you know, any guy things like that that most women can't relate to; I know there's other guy issues too, but this is the most obvious stuff from my experience......But anyways, as I was saying, I often feel like when I bring up guy issues that some people's attitude about it is that I shouldn't talk about these things because it means I'm somehow against women. Nooo, I'm just talking about my own issues which are relevant to my life. Can't I do that? Anyways, that's just kinda how it feels to me.


It really angers me when I see men treated like you describe. I believe any movement towards advocating for rights of men or women should consider stereotypes and prejudices that happen towards both men and women (and non-binary folks) in how they go about it - because we don't live in a vacuum, and we're all human.

I don't agree with everything that happens in feminist circles, but there are measured voices out there which consider sexism to be wrong in all directions. I also don't consider Peterson to be a good example of a measured voice, and apparently saying that he made outrageous statements is invalidating to all men (or at least three people have expressed something like that, or taken offense about criticizing him), which is frustrating in a similar way to when men say that they worry about being against one woman/feminist idea will be interpreted as being against all women.

@Plusless 

I found this:

Warrnambool school sorry for making boys stand in apology for 'behaviours of their gender' - ABC News 

Is this what you were talking about? Are you in Australia? This is a real issue, but I would need more information about it if it were continued and widespread. I tried googling what else might be happening but couldn't find anything (not that it doesn't exist, but maybe is not easily searchable). The event in Australia did spark a lot of protest and the school apologized, so that is good.

Anyway, I can't just accept whatever other people believe (or even what I believe) based on gross generalizations. It might be a starting point, if reasonable/conservative enough, but I can't take it as true just because I feel like it is true. I need evidence and facts and specifics, and if I get carried away by distortions, I appreciate being reeled back in. One reason I think it is a problem is because what you feel about a grossly overgeneralized claim might not be based in the same thing as someone else, and then you end up agreeing about totally different experiences/occurrences based on a vague notion while thinking you're talking about the same thing, and then you get mob behavior. I don't like that form of "validating." I'd rather hear what people have to say about their own lives, as individuals, and use data/facts to solve problems (which Peterson rarely incorporates or incorporates them poorly). I'd say JP is offensive to my skepticism, not my womanhood, lol. If that upsets you, I'm not sure what to do about that except leave it be.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Dezir said:


> Why aren't you conviced?


From the standpoint of your arguments, the way you define what is masculine and feminine seems personal. You give lots of characteristics that are all over the place to me about what men who aren't masculine enough look like ("macho" "nerdy" "simp" "wears glasses"), and it appear like you have this very involved/complex view of what being masculine (or feminine) means. It is almost like you are working at it backwards: men who you see as successful at getting women or respect from society are masculine, men who don't are not.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Squirt said:


> From the standpoint of your arguments, the way you define what is masculine and feminine seems personal. You give lots of characteristics that are all over the place to me about what men who aren't masculine enough look like ("macho" "nerdy" "simp" "wears glasses"), and it appear like you have this very involved/complex view of what being masculine (or feminine) means. It is almost like you are working at it backwards: men who you see as successful at getting women or respect from society are masculine, men who don't are not.


How would you define masculinity? And by contrast femininity?


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Dezir said:


> Not women in general, feminists. They want women to be more like men, and men to be more like women. Feminists want to influence women to be more like men because "we can do it" (good for them, you can do it) and influence men to be more like women because "there's a lot of toxic masculinity out there", toxic masculinity isn't the problem, the lack of masculinity is.
> 
> You know who are usually the abusers? Men with inferiority complexes, men who lack masculinity. In my experience, the most masculine men were also the kindest men I've ever seen, because when you are assured you don't see any reason to be cruel to others. Masculinity is that strong guy who helps you get the jar from the top shelf and then opens it, using his strength to help you. They are very masculine men and use their power to help you.
> 
> ...


Any woman who believes in equality is a feminist. I'm a feminist and I do not want men to turn into women or vice versa. Feminism is the belief in equality. The narrative that you seem to have is that feminists want to emasculate men and threaten their existence or take something away from them. That is not the aim of feminism.

Men who abuse women don't have inferiority complexes, we have to put away the idea that they are different or born bad. It happens too often (every two minutes there is a call to the police regarding DV) to be such a large number of men with these issues that you define as not a part of a healthy male. Domestic violence is a gendered issue rather than a problem that "Karens" incite or men with inferiority complexes have. 

Women don't take maleness away from boys. They do want them to stop raping them and they do want them to stop hitting them and there needs to be a truth-telling about how it happens. It happens a lot and rapists are mostly the men we know. It doesn't happen because she somehow asks for it, by wearing provocative clothes.

Your ideas of feminised men or men compensating are a bit weird. I can say that individual differences aren't reliant how much feminism has "taken" masculinity away from men. 

Andrew Tate seems to be full of shit and shouldn't be listened to as an expert on anything. The fact that he was called a misogynist by Piers Morgan (who is well-known for not being politically correct) tells a lot about that.

I want you to stop replying with these walls of text. It's too time consuming to sift through the points. Keep it concise.


----------



## Gamine (5 mo ago)

Dezir said:


> Why are you so insistent that I don't understand, instead of explaining me why I don't understand? Heck, school me if you want, but explain it. "Because I read this study and this and you should too", well, if you did read that study then you should have no issues countering my arguments and explaining me why I don't understand using the information you got from the studies, don't you?
> 
> So, wage gap isn't only money, but also domestic violence, the choice of men, leave days specifically for DV. Can you go more in-depth how all of them are interconnected and eventually lead to wage gap?
> 
> ...


Why do all of your posts have to be book length? Can not formulate your points in a paragraph? tltr.. all the time.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Dezir said:


> How would you define masculinity? And by contrast femininity?


We probably should have led this entire thread with that question, lol.

I think there are two ways to approach it: 1) a more empirical sense, like physical qualities that characterize typical males vs females that are verifiable in relation to one another and reasonably independent of culture (like sex organs, body hair, size, voice differences, hormones and specific effects). And 2) an abstract, symbolic sense which might be psychologically based on empirical differences between sexes but all humans can access and draw from (courage, assertiveness, directness for masculine; receptive, flowing, open for feminine).

When it comes to individuals, they will always fall on a continuum, both empirically and symbolically, and in how they express themselves (which can also change over time).

The idea of anima and animus is one I am still on the fence about but is intriguing. That there can be negative and positive expressions of symbolic masculinity/femininity. Like, assertiveness turns to violence, or receptivity turns to a passivity in the face of harm. One thing that bugs me about it is that men are supposed to only have an “anima” and women an “animus”… but from my observation people can have dysfunctions that can relate to aspects all over that spectrum, and certain complexes develop depending on their self-concept and relationships. We are able to “see into” each other to some extent, I think.

I’m glad we decided to continue this conversation. It is breaking down my initial assumptions about feminine traits being undervalued equally across the board. In some contexts it is, but maybe not in others. You’ve also argued for balance for men and women, which does show you do value what you see as feminine qualities, too, just not the “negative” expressions. Sorry it took so long to understand you about that.

This all sort of remains in a philosophical realm, which is why JimT was so helpful, as well as the examples given by Plusless of harmful policies affecting men. When it comes to how to handle complexes or issues that come up, I’d want to again rely on data and find solutions based on a good understanding of a particular issue that is affecting one gender over another. Like, “why are women attaining more college degrees than men?” On the other hand, dealing with any individual problems would need to be at the individual level… like if one man is having difficulty finding a partner, addressing him in the context of his own private circumstances and needs.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

beth x said:


> Any woman who believes in equality is a feminist. I'm a feminist and I do not want men to turn into women or vice versa. Feminism is the belief in equality. The narrative that you seem to have is that feminists want to emasculate men and threaten their existence or take something away from them. That is not the aim of feminism.
> 
> Men who abuse women don't have inferiority complexes, we have to put away the idea that they are different or born bad. It happens too often (every two minutes there is a call to the police regarding DV) to be such a large number of men with these issues that you define as not a part of a healthy male. Domestic violence is a gendered issue rather than a problem that "Karens" incite or men with inferiority complexes have.
> 
> ...


Not really, feminism describes itself as a movement for equalty. But feminism doesn't own equality. Nor it's the only movement advocating for equality. Well, you've read @Flabarac Brupip's indoctrination camps (because I can't name them otherwise) story.

Why won't those women just leave or divorce?

Again, what @Flabarac Brupip described seems like an awful lot of feminists (not women) trying to take maleness away from boys. How it happens? What is the process that leads to domestic abuse? Obviously, it doesn't happen because she somehow asks for it, by wearing provocative clothes. As you said, are mostly the men we know. Most often boyfriends or husbands.

My ideas seem to be the mainstream in my experience, but probably not in feminist circles. It's based on culture, that's how it happens, you might as well say "I can say that individual differences aren't reliant how much men have taken away from women in 1910s".

I'm not one to judge a book by its cover, but Piers Morgan stroke me as a crook the moment I saw him, and the moment I saw his interviews it only confirmed my original suspition. Didn't see his interview with Andrew Tate though, although it would be interesting.



Squirt said:


> We probably should have led this entire thread with that question, lol.
> 
> I think there are two ways to approach it: 1) a more empirical sense, like physical qualities that characterize typical males vs females that are verifiable in relation to one another and reasonably independent of culture (like sex organs, body hair, size, voice differences, hormones and specific effects). And 2) an abstract, symbolic sense which might be psychologically based on empirical differences between sexes but all humans can access and draw from (courage, assertiveness, directness for masculine; receptive, flowing, open for feminine).
> 
> ...


Very true, lol.

I think we are going for number 2 here.

Can you explain more how does this work "men are supposed to only have an “anima” and women an “animus" ?

I understand where you came from originally. I made that comment how "toxic masculinity isn't the problem, maybe the lack of masculinity is" and "you grow up with a female-predominated enviroment around you, they teach you feminist stuff, you grow up frustrated because whatever you do is not working". Then gave all those examples such as "you don't look as cool as you want to do and repress that part of yourself, so repressed inferiority complex towards other men", "you don't get female attention maybe friendzone at best because you're such a nice female guy but don't make them feel emotions, so repressed sexual impulses", "you are not competitive enough so you don't survive in a work enviroment without the boost of 'treat her nicer because she's a woman', so fail at work due to lack of competitiveness", and you took it as me saying female traits being bad.

Rather, what I was aiming for was that feminine traits don't work in men the same way they work in women. Because there are some things you can do as a man, and get bad results, and if you do the exact same thing as a woman, you get good results.

I'm also glad we continued this conversation, would have been a real waste if we stopped halfway.

By the way, I got to share this:




"the kids don't want to clean their room, they want a Bugatti" lmafo
"they don't even protest me and my shows anymore" this is gold


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

_facepalm_ Didn't mean to stoke the fire. Oh well.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Dezir said:


> Not really, feminism describes itself as a movement for equalty. But feminism doesn't own equality. Nor it's the only movement advocating for equality. Well, you've read @Flabarac Brupip's indoctrination camps (because I can't name them otherwise) story.
> 
> Why won't those women just leave or divorce?
> 
> ...


I find what you think are gender stereotypes are pretty specific to you and probably not the rest of the world. Your ideas are not mainstream. 

I've given you the reasons why it is thought that DV happens gendered violence happens when there are rigid gender roles. It happens with both sexes but more often it's men.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

beth x said:


> I find what you think are gender stereotypes are pretty specific to you and probably not the rest of the world. Your ideas are not mainstream.
> 
> I've given you the reasons why it is thought that DV happens gendered violence happens when there are rigid gender roles. It happens with both sexes but more often it's men.


I find my ideas pretty mainstream. We probably have different circles.

Most of what I got from you where the statistics, not the mention of the causes.

As for me, I told you the causes of domestic abuse.

There are women who can spot abusive men and stay away from them.

And there are women who don't.

We need to teach women who don't to do.

I know you are of the opinion that you don't see the DV coming in a lot of cases until after you've been put into a situation where you are vulnerable, like being pregnant or moving in with someone or marrying them. They start when they have an advantage over the relationship, otherwise, women would just say, upon meeting abusers they would say they don't want any part of it.

But I disagree... most of the time these red flags are really obvious, they don't happen overnight.

Yes, there are some few cases where the man is really sneaky and the woman could have seen it coming, but even then she could leave him right after finding out. But in general, in those cases with the woman being lovestruck by a parasite, that man is full of red flags, red flags bigger than the flag of China, the woman just couldn't see it or didn't want to see it because she loves him.

You don't have a sudden realisation long after you moved in. Rather everyone knows it but you long after you moved it. Either because you refuse to see the red flags because you're in love, or you ignore them as you don't care about them, but the red flags are there, and lots of them.

My terrible man-made dating advice for women would be - You just have to select the quality one, by that I mean morally.

By that I mean, you have to select a man who is moral. Look how they treat others he has nothing to gain from. Heck, even look how they treat animals, especially the animals they don't like. Speaking of animals they don't like, I don't like children, I don't enjoy being in their presence or talking to them, I'm not that 'nurturing' in this regard, or so I think. Because on a few occasions I've been around children and my girlfriend she was like "dude, if that's your I don't like kids version, I really want to see how you behave with kids you like", she was basically saying that even though I say that 'I don't like kids' I don't behave at all like someone who doesn't like kids, so I guess everyone having different ranges around this can also be a thing.

Feels kind of weird to give myself as an example, but I never abused anyone in my life, so there's that.

This is interconnected with my nerds & jocks comparison and the feminine-looking man, because women prefer men who are masculine. 

In high school, who gets all the girls? The jocks or the nerds? the nerds are better boyfriends on paper. The world is just an extension of that.

The nerds are better boyfriends on paper, but the jocks get the girls because women are attracted to the jocks.

Andrew Tate (very masculine-looking guy) love him or hate him, can't deny the fact that he has tons of women. Elliot Rogers (very feminine-looking guy) hate him or hate him, can't deny the fact that he went rampage exactly because he was a simp and couldn't get any women and couldn't understand what he did wrong. He was so arrogant to compensate but didn't really had any good masculine traits. And he didn't had a good father figure, so lack of masculinity as I said.

I've seen my share of nice guys who would make great boyfriends on paper, they have good paying jobs, are nice, are decent, and respectful. But couldn't get a girlfriend. As well as of assholes who would make terrible boyfriends, husbands, everything, yet have tons of women to pick from. And often take advantage of that, at the cost of the woman.

In fact, I can think of 2 nice guys I know just on the top of my head. They are both a bit overweight, a bit "fluffy", have really good paying jobs, make a lot of money, and are indeed very nice, decent and respectful people. The kind of people who would not say a bad word about anyone. They are very nice, and bland, and in their place.

Why aren't women interested in them? because they aren't interested, there's nothing about them that interests them.

It's not that they wouldn't treat them right, it's that there's nothing that attracts them in the first place.

You have no idea how many women appreciates them.... as a friend. And how many women have told them you will find someone.... just not me. They think they are really cool people, they just aren't attracted to them.

It's okay as a man to be "fluffy" emotionally, especially if you're trying to compensate it with strength. But not "fluffy" physically.

They're cool and nice, with not much going on. If they had a girlfriend, from what they said, they would be a lot more like the traditional boyfriend or the traditional nerd boyfriend. Bringing love, and flowers and chocolate. They should be a woman's dream man according to romantic comedies, but they aren't a woman's dream man according to reality.

That's because women like bad boys. Or at least a certain part of bad boys.

That aggressiveness, that power, that control, women like that. There are certain traits that bad boys have that women adore, and nice guys bland like these guys don't. They don't like the abusive part, but they like other things about the bad boys. We can talk more about what that means but I think I've made my case with the leftist vegan girl who said she always had bad boy types.

She said she didn't want kids, willingly, she met this guy and she wasn't into him at all (soft friendly guy, smallish too), and then she got a much wanted child with her openly alt-right man. An "alpha".

As the comedian said: officially they are leftist vegan 'goody goody' girls, but at the same time (when they are horny esp) they want misogynistic bad men.

This exact woman was of the opinion in the future there would be only nerdy men. The comedian was like: all this violence its disgusting... fuck me! 

Like "yeah, you're a bad boy, and I generally don't like that, but I just make an exception for you, your violence disgusts me, want to screw around?".

Yeah, not all women are like that, but there's a significant amount of women who do.

This is why I have an issue with the feminist's idea of the "new man". They want to emasculate men, to make men as women as possible, because "toxic masculinity". So they feel safe probably? But at the same time, they don't want these exact men that they themselves want to create, they go for the other men that they themselves hate. Basically, giving a win-lose situation to men.

So why playing a losing game? why following this norm that won't give you any satisfaction or success in life because a feminist wants it?

There's a fair amount of men who are masculine without being abusers. Men want to feel strong in a society that tells them not to, because it's bad, because that's toxic masculinity. But I've already made that case about what happens to men who grow in overy-feminine enviroments, exactly because they lack masculinity. That may work for women, but won't work for them.

Exactly like... I don't know if this is a good comparison. As a man you want to feel "strong", as a woman you want to feel "pretty". What if you were told as a woman your entire life that you want to be strong, muscles, armpits, hair, whatever, that you have to be strong, that you should be strong, so you follow the social norm and what society "instructs" you, but deep down inside you want to feel pretty.

Same thing happens to those men, at some point that conditioning becomes ingrained and they self-emsaculate themselves, because that's what they were thought, they were thought that those traits are bad, they aren't.


They don't care about looking cool, looking masculine, they repress that part of themselves. They are feminine looking and don't find anything wrong with that because "that's what I was thought", but they do compare themselves with other men and find themselves wanting, leading to an inferiority complex towards other men. So looks? fail. They don't look hot, they look nerdy.
You don't get female attention maybe friendzone as best because you're such a nice female guy but don't make them feel emotions, so repressed sexual impulses.

I think I already wrote this in the OP there's no point rewriting it, they teach you feminist stuff and you get to suffer because of it, the bottom line is:

*If a man would behave like a feminist, he would have no success with women*.

K-pop boys are not feminine-looking men, they are a mixture of masculine and feminine.

Are feminist men famous for having tons of women? or even a woman but hot? I don't think so.

And as I also said: A lot of guys who are on women's march of hardcore feminists and are overly sympathetic are actually quite predatory. Their psychology is 'maybe if I am on their side they will sleep with me'.

Which is the absolutely wost way to go, you should go the opposite direction, making yourself attractive by being more masculine and attractive to women, heck a woman can be attracted to you even if she disagrees with you, or especially if she disagrees with you, there's emotions in that disagreement, and shows you are principled, that you have your own ideas and don't try to patter her or raise her on a pedestal but treat her like a normal person.

While the overly "macho" or "manly" are usually compensating not being masculine. Like having a big truck, a sleveless shirt and overall a more crude voice to appear more masculine.

You may say: ok, but why can't we go past these "ancient stereotypes of what it means to be a man?", "why can't we all get along without being masculine". For the same time we can't get along without being feminine.

You're not feminine? Not a lot of men will want you. You're not masculine? Not a lot of women will want you.

Who would get women, a strong ripped man or a skinny short with glasses man? Confident, etc, all the classical stuff. You can be confident and nice and kind and ripped. A lot of female fan-fiction are like that. So why can't we drop "ancient stereotypes of what it means to be a man?" because women decide who the winners are.

Same is true gender-reversed.

Some things are not cultural but simply genetic attraction.

And culture is based around that.

So yeah, feminists can advertise the "new man" or "drop ancient stereotypes of what it means to be a man" as much as they want. Sounds good in theory, but will only lead to bad results for the men in question. This is an issue.

This sounds good in theory. But did you ever date a guy like Elliot Rogers? I don't know, but I'm going to roll the dice and assume no. I wonder why, maybe because he was too feminine?

Life isn't a competition, we're not out there fighting each other, but women do pick the winners. Who is the better man, the more masculine man, the hotter man. Are you a hot man? women want you. 

What feminists want, is basically these men being emasculated and getting the consolation prize of being "women's friends" while they go out and have sex and date and end up in relationships with men they really like.

Feminists are trying to give men a no better deal than women had 100 years ago. You're not the end of the pariarchy or a better person, you're more of the same, the other side of the coin.

But at least you get to have female compassion, they will tell you that they "love you as a friend" and get hostile towards you if you make a move towards them because you "expect entitlement to sex, how dare you?".

They will love you, as a friend. This isn't what you want, but they will love you as a friend, so you better get thankful for that. Because you can't get hot, because it's bad, it's toxic masculinity. We will go for hot men by the way, but you can't, you have to be our friend, because it's the right thing to do, you're a feminist and we really appreciate you for it. (yeah, right, good luck being a slave with extra step because feminists say it's "the right thing to do")

So what's wrong with a feminine-looking man and why I made that case in my OP that a man should not be a feminine looking man because we play by different rules, as in what works for men doesn't work for women and vice-versa? There is something _wrong _with a feminine-looking man that is sucks for them to be this way, they get negative feedback from life because of this, rejection, outcasting, etc. Not only women, but other men as well because they are not "good enough". While clearly not being "good enough" for women. And then they become either angry at the world (for treating them this way) or double down in their simp ways (thinking extra simping will help, they just aren't simp enough, that's what they do wrong). Either way, both cases only them stand to lose. Well, not only them, sometimes one may go full Elliot Rogers and the whole world will have to suffer because of them.

It's the men's fault for treating them this way? yeah, it is, men are at fault for excluding them for not being masculine enough too, like the women's cases again not all men but a significant amount of men, but they get mainly rejection from women. That's their main issue. That's their no.1 issue. I don't think any of them would have problems even if men would hate them but women love them, but they don't.

*Sure, they may love them "as a friend", but that's like your boss not giving you salary because he loves you as a friend*. You don't really want that. But then the argument goes "they are not entitled to sex", yes, they aren't, but they want it, and the way they behave, this feminine-looking way with no masculinity or good looks to make them attracted to women, isn't giving them any sex, so they hate it, and get mad at it, and then at the world.

Masculinity doesn't mean punching the table and saying "go to the kitchen". If anything, it's frustration from lack of masculinity that cause that.

Heck, there was a video game study that proved that. It seems that most masculine men are respectful with women online, while the most effeminate men are the ones what go "wooo, woman", "go make me a sandwhich" when a woman goes to play online. Researches have speculated it's because effeminate men see women as a treat to their social position when a woman joins an online game (so you may have had a point about men upset that women take their jobs back then) where as masculine men don't see them as threatening or competition. It was made across 5 video games, from strategy to shooters, the results were the same, so it's not the game.

The point of all of this is - maybe we should rethink masculinity?

Maybe people like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson exist because they touch a market and a segment of people marginalized by post-modernism?

Here's what I mean in practice:




She hated everything about that man, almost everything.
Would you want to see Andrew Tate again? YES.

Stupid for Andrew Tate not to play that game then.

*I argue that it's lack of masculinity that's messed up. And feminists trying to repress that masculinity (despite being something that they themselves want)*. (as examples with the girls above who actually say they want good men but they want bad men). It's genetics. 

They love them, they are lovestruck by them. They are biologically inclined to find them more attractive rather than by conscious choice.

And the women who do that, select more masculine men, do that for a good reason. Yes, it's genetics for a part (they are biologically inclined to find them more attractive rather than by conscious choice), but why is it genetics? Because we need masculinity, women need masculinity, and they know that, subconsciosuly.

Those women in question need a masculine man to protect them. And they know that they need it, to help them with lots of stuff. To give their offsprings a better chance of survival, to do better in business and work enviroments, to scale higher on the men's social hierarchy, etc. Masculinity is still needed. *Heck, there's a reason militarily are all manly given military that aren't manly lose*.

Why we need masculinity? the military. If a foreign country attacks, let's say Russia, we need masculine men to defend us, not effemine boys who can't hold a man. Masculine men who can make a stand, defend, etc, that's why women are attracted to that, it's needed, and it's good for them.

This is almost never in feminist narratives. And if it is, it has a bad connotation. It's seen as a bad thing not a good thing. Thus my arguments that feminists are trying to take away masculinity, to effiminate men so that they feel better. At the cost of men. This is not equality. This is not both genders playing to their strengths. But rather blending both genders in something they themselves want.

The issue is that a predator is closer to a masculine man than a nerd or feminine boy is closer to a masculine man. Ideally, women want a masculine man, but if they have to pick between the predator and the nerd or feminine boy, they will usually pick the predator, thus many domestic abuse cases.

Why women wear make-up? good results with men. Why men are bad? good results with women.

If this wasn't the case, assholes will fall out of existance, but there's something about that that attracts women.

Again, not all women, some women, making generalizations here.

You find this gross? maybe, but if the women wouldn't pick them none of these would have happened.

I prefer to learn what it is and work with what it is rather than what could have/should have been.

I believe I was much shorter this time, I tried to be much shorter, I hope you appreciate it.


----------



## OrchidSugar (5 mo ago)

🥲🥲🥲


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

OrchidSugar said:


> 🥲🥲🥲


I agree.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

@Dezir It sounds more like you’re arguing that women want abusive/exploitative men, not masculine ones (if heterosexual). You’d agree men can be masculine without being abusive, right?

I’d also ask: If we can address why women are with abusive men, can we also address why men are abusive? I’d think you’d want to resolve it from both sides, not just one. So for the sake of balance, what do you think men can do to reduce the incidence of violence against women?

What feminist policies/advocacy is emasculating, in particular? Simply claiming you are a feminist and making poor choices (like the vegan girl) isn’t the same as advocating for policies that are emasculating. I do wonder if a woman who has been in abusive relationships would be more likely to get involved with women’s rights groups. I think that could potentially help her avoid abusive situations or break any cycles of abuse, like finding support to leave.

I don’t get how you are saying all the responsibility should fall on women because “that is easier” or something. Clearly, from all your complaints even, it isn’t easy for anybody.

Please don’t repeat the same points again, as I’ve already read them and still have these questions…


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Dezir said:


> I find my ideas pretty mainstream. We probably have different circles.
> 
> Most of what I got from you where the statistics, not the mention of the causes.
> 
> ...


I have asked you to be concise. There isn't any way to address more than a couple of points. I'm asking you again. Keep your posts shorter. There isn't anything that you can say that needs that much attention. Trust me, there isn't an audience here for such long posts. 

I've explained why women don't leave DV situations. They know how dangerous it can be. Stewart Rhodes wife strategised for two years because she thought he would kill her. He is a dangerous man. Before you say she should have known, just stop for a moment and check yourself. They had been married for 25 years and he had complete control over her, What an abuser does is erode your sense of self worth, they isolate you from anyone who might feel like a threat to their control. They make your life so busy with demands. 

If you really want to learn about DV (personally I feel you don't). Here is Rosie Batty. Her son was murdered by his father at cricket training. She was Australian of the Year in 2015. She campaigned for DV recognition.









The Batty effect: How one woman changed the conversation on domestic violence


Before Rosie Batty bravely spoke out about her son’s murder, family violence was rarely publicly discussed. We need to continue to build on her legacy.




lens.monash.edu





Feminists don't want a new man. They want to feel safe in their own home. That is all.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

@Dezir I know I asked some other questions, but think I’m gonna bow out. Folks can’t live by stereotypes and life is messy. That is really what it comes down to for me. See you around!


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Squirt said:


> @Dezir It sounds more like you’re arguing that women want abusive/exploitative men, not masculine ones (if heterosexual). You’d agree men can be masculine without being abusive, right?
> 
> I’d also ask: If we can address why women are with abusive men, can we also address why men are abusive? I’d think you’d want to resolve it from both sides, not just one. So for the sake of balance, what do you think men can do to reduce the incidence of violence against women?
> 
> ...


I argue that women want masculine men. But if they have to pick between abusive and wuss men, they would pick the abusive men.

I agree that men can be masculine without being abusive. And that this is what women ideally want.

There is something really strange I noticed. Women seem to have like a "protective mechanism" against fake niceness, so to speak.

Basically. For a man it doesn't matter at all. But for a woman it matters the world whether you're nice because you want to as in it's a choice or your nice because you can't be otherwise.

If you're a dick, but can be nice, it's much more appreciated than just being nice for some reason.

I do whatever I want but I'm also nice and helpful. That's what women find attractive.

But, if I were just nice and attractive. Women would not find me attractive at all without that sense of "I do it because I want it and I own it", this combined sense of freedom & responsability is cool.

If you have a nice guy who is nice to you 100% of the time, it wouldn't be as appreciated as me being nice to you 50% of the time which wouldn't be as appreciated as bad boys being nice to you 10% of the time.

It's weird. This is literally not the case for men.

With men, the nicer you are to them, the nicer they are to you.

Absolutely, we can address why men are abusive. But I find it an impossible problem, the equivalent of asking: why people are murderers? It will probably be long and complex and will not help at all in solving the issue because there will always be murderers.

I don't wish to tag him again, but Flabarac's examples have been pretty emasculating. There is also the whole idea of toxic masculinity.

Well, yes, because that is solvable. That's why I do it. I believe all responsability should fall on women because it's easier to fix it this way.

I've already wrote about how I envision a solution.

Can you Invision a solution on the abuser's part? How do I educate a woman to spot and avoid abusive men - doable. How do I convince an abuser to stop being an abuser when that has worked for him pretty well - an impossible problem for me, I don't have the answer.

How do I convince an abuser to act outside his interest? I don't think I can.

Ok, I understand, thank you for the conversation.



beth x said:


> I have asked you to be concise. There isn't any way to address more than a couple of points. I'm asking you again. Keep your posts shorter. There isn't anything that you can say that needs that much attention. Trust me, there isn't an audience here for such long posts.
> 
> I've explained why women don't leave DV situations. They know how dangerous it can be. Stewart Rhodes wife strategised for two years because she thought he would kill her. He is a dangerous man. Before you say she should have known, just stop for a moment and check yourself. They had been married for 25 years and he had complete control over her, What an abuser does is erode your sense of self worth, they isolate you from anyone who might feel like a threat to their control. They make your life so busy with demands.
> 
> ...


"What an abuser does is erode your sense of self worth, they isolate you from anyone who might feel like a threat to their control. They make your life so busy with demands."

Which is exactly why women need to be educated about this.

I read the article. What is it about the content of the article that you feel would contradict me? Interesting article, but how is it related to my points? It's a response or an addition?

I never denied that DV exists, if that is what you are implying. We are arguing about causes here, not existance.

You think I don't care about DV because I said women have a responsability? They are not mutually exclusive.

I'm saying this as a simple fact, not because I hate women or whatever.

How can facts be sexist? My opinion is women are doing X not women deserve Y. There's a huge difference.

Tl;dr
It's the Chad that gets the girl.

Not all Chads are bad. Some are good Chads.

But women would prefer a bad Chad than no Chad.

Masculine = Guts to put yourself. Guts to beat it. Balls to get in. Balls to get over.

Ex: return a project, or a card, would you do it or would you not? A masculine man would do it, women appreciate that. Or guts to say you want to have sex. Or guts to hit on them, etc.

Guts to put yourself and interact with them.
(The way you want it, on your terms, but without being a dick about it)
Basically, guts to state what you want. (Sex)
And when in the right, guts to pick up a fight if you don't get what you want. (Neighbors dog; return example)

Women love that. That's what Chads do and have.

I don't know how to describe the feel, just look at football fanboys and you'll see it.

Decent men of society. Women want men to be decent men of society, healthy women that is.

Calm, articulate, serious, etc. Nice, soft, blain, with depth, etc. To have understanding and a good peace of mind with them for a healthy relationship.

But not all.

It's a pleasure for a man to be subservient for such a woman.

Can I do that for you? Can I take that for you? Can I bring that for you?

For such a woman. Not for the other types mentioned above.

So he will do it without asking. Again, the woman's behavior matters a lot, it's not only men that's the factor here.

It's simply pleasant to do such things for such a woman, help them, because it feels like it's appreciated and like they deserve it and like they are good women.

Not for the others. The ones, who usually go for bad boys and end up suffering out of domestic abuser. It's simply not a healthy relationship, but it starts with the woman and the man, it wasn't simply bad luck, there was a decision there.

If you have no idea what a healthy relationship looks like, of course you are going to fall in bad relationships.

That feeling of attracted when looking at someone, it's gold.

The character stuff is really a minor stuff. If you get to look like a Chad, things will be so much easier for you, whether you hit on good women or bad women.

If you want masculinity summed up:
Valhalla Calling Me - song by Miracle of Sound.

Valhalla calling me song - masculinity.

Or those who wear viking tatoo. A viking tattoo is usually a good indicator (lol). I have rarely seen someone waring a viking tatoo, the logo not the runes, and not being the embodiment of a viking.

Vikings, who used to steal the women of the Saxons, there are records about this, not steal in the sense of kidnap although that sometimes happened, but steal in the sense that women willingly went to them. There are letters between lord's complaining about these things, lol, losing women to vikings because they look better, dress better, take care of their hair, etc, lol.

You're not going to find a fat overweight guy with a water cap and glasses but also a viking logo on his hand while eating a hamburger at the pool. With a big belly.

So yeah, Vallhla calling me and this, good examples of the "feel" of masculinity.

Good men, masculine men, generally are:

Barbarian and civilized. The most repulsive and the most amiable of manners. All at the same time.

It's a combo between bring crude and bring civilized at the same time but without being offensive. Barbaric but the right kind of barbaric.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

OK @Dezir you have shown me exactly how you want to stay willingly ignorant about this. You are actually talking to women and you are telling us what we want. We are women and feminists and you are telling us what we want of men. That just says everything. You will talk over us, ignore anything we ask of you, and still act like you know it all.


----------

