# Men's worth today



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

So, it seems like that today, men aren't relevant or appreciated. No one, at least in the West, seems to admire their traits, physical and sometimes otherwise. However, I am against the prospect of forcing men to fit into a mold in order to presumably satisfy society's neds - it might be counter-productive, such as forcing a man to be good into sports when he has other equally useful vocations, like engineering or media. At the same time, though, I believe that men have a rather aloof personality which makes them that way.

I don't know, but these days, guys seem to be rather invisible in the media aside from the fact that they're that token hero in some action film, and I feel like that that's one of their only sources of worth. Women are valued for much more these days, such as for being able to fulfill what would have been considered men's roles in the past.

I have to admit, I envy women for some of the things they're appreciated for, such as their sex appeal. From what I have seen, even straight women are able to appreciate what makes a woman attractive. Men, not so much.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I know of a few men who are unappreciated. But yeah outside that get in line. Most people do not get merit badges that actually acknowledge all their strengths and efforts, man woman, yellow, white, black we live in a melting pot of people who feel entitled this is not gender based it is current culture raised to feel entitled and getting participation badges just for doing whatever anyone else with basic simple half ounce of integrity has to go do for themselves. Welcome to the world. If it bites you on your ass it lets you know you're not comatose. Isn't it nice to be breathing. Sorry you feel unappreciated for having a penis. I have felt unappreciated in life not because of my genitalia but usually when I allowed myself to not push myself hard enough. Urm ok. 

Well I hope you and your penis end up feeling better for existing soon. Wishing you and your penis a safe recovery.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Sensational said:


> I know of a few men who are unappreciated. But yeah outside that get in line. Most people do not get merit badges that actually acknowledge all their strengths and efforts, man woman, yellow, white, black we live in a melting pot of people who feel entitled this is not gender based it is current culture raised to feel entitled and getting participation badges just for doing whatever anyone else with basic simple half ounce of integrity has to go do for themselves. Welcome to the world. If it bites you on your ass it lets you know you're not comatose. Isn't it nice to be breathing. Sorry you feel unappreciated for having a penis. I have felt unappreciated in life not because of my genitalia but usually when I allowed myself to not push myself hard enough. Urm ok.
> 
> Well I hope you and your penis end up feeling better for existing soon. Wishing you and your penis a safe recovery.


I kind of support this participation trophy deal. I can see why people oppose it, but I don't know, perhaps it might be just a tiny bit better to just offer them that participation trophy than have to deal with them crying non-stop for finishing last at the school race because they'll never amount to anything, at least during that situation. 

It's kind of off topic, but nevertheless interesting how you managed to be able to bring this into the thread. 

As for me and my penis, I'll try and find something for it. I wonder how you get the motivation to push yourself harder? I prefer living by the bare minimum and just make tweaks when I feel like it, usually within academia. Outside of academia I'm far less productive.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Riven said:


> I kind of support this participation trophy deal. I can see why people oppose it, but I don't know, perhaps it might be just a tiny bit better to just offer them that participation trophy than have to deal with them crying non-stop for finishing last at the school race because they'll never amount to anything, at least during that situation.
> 
> It's kind of off topic, but nevertheless interesting how you managed to be able to bring this into the thread.
> 
> As for me and my penis, I'll try and find something for it. I wonder how you get the motivation to push yourself harder? I prefer living by the bare minimum and just make tweaks when I feel like it, usually within academia. Outside of academia I'm far less productive.


Because it's a necessity not a luxury


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Sensational said:


> Because it's a necessity not a luxury


This might take me on to thinking about the moral implications of not improving oneself, which could be used in another thread. I can discuss this if you want, I didn't open this thread with the intent of discussing it though unless it can relate to the original topic in some way.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Riven said:


> This might take me on to thinking about the moral implications of not improving oneself, which could be used in another thread. I can discuss this if you want, I didn't open this thread with the intent of discussing it though unless it can relate to the original topic in some way.


I think actually your reaction and response is all related to the topic of the thread and how you perceive the world. If you personally feel men are unappreciated it might significantly have to do with how you perceive your own world interacting and how you conduct yourself and people respond. I mean if you would like to be taken seriously you should definitely keep the theme of martyr and if someone disagrees you can make a few irrelevant passive aggressive comments and then after they retaliate you can suggest when they responded to you that they deviated from your subject. Slow clap. Whelp toodles. 

Oh have fun with your academia as you mentioned at random seems to be helping you.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Where are you getting this impression exactly? I get the sense that you put a disproportionate amount on things (things which we have to assume because it's just an asserted impression) much to the neglect of other things.
To explain, in a systemic review, one collects a series of papers relevant to one's research question and downloads all of them and goes through them all ot see their relevance in order to reduce bias. The issue of bias being that people seek out things that catch their interest/attention, and in a disproportionate focus on somethings, one simply ignores the existence of the things that may weigh against their weighting of one thing against another. In this case, the impression that women are more valued.

I'm just worried there's a one sidedness to this that doesn't adequately capture much nuance in order to make such a point. Relying on something as abstract as men in general without distinction that men aren't much of a universal class in regards to how they're perceived and treated in society. Such a focus is inordinately focused on the appearance of things and hasn't yet figured out more substantive relations within society. Because men in general is as abstract as humanity in general, but a substnative universality of mankind doesn't exist as there are clear divisions throughout.

But to get at this emphasis on women being good, there is the idea of 'Women are wonderful' effect.
To which there is of course evidence as there isn't a simplistic hatred of women.
ARE WOMEN EVALUATED MORE FAVORABLY THAN MEN? An Analysis of Attitudes, Beliefs, and Emotions.


> In conclusion, our findings suggest that people evaluate women quite favorably as a general social category. Although our respondents evaluated men favorably as well, their evaluations of women were more positive than their evaluations of men when we consider their overall attitudes and the attributes that they ascribed to the sexes. This conclusion was not contradicted by any evidence for covert negativity toward women at the emotional level. Nor did it appear that the overall positivity toward women masked an unusual amount of ambivalence.


But I speculate this is simply one sidedness that is better captured by an ambivalent sexism scale.
Which I think is a richer conception in that it conceptually allows itself to be more open to such nuance where the evidence for the sole focus of positive opinions of women is true, it's more partial than the ambivalence sexism inventory.
This should help to explain how by not only focusing on a positive evaluations, one better explains the nuance in reality.
Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce
Which is primarily a piece arguing that value ladeness doesn't disrupt the ability to find empirically sound evidence and design valid studies. A useful point about it was to express a point of fruitfulness, that a study design that investigated both possible detrimental and positive effects from divorce would be said to be more fruitful in their study design than one that only examined the positives or the negative outcomes. 

And I think what actually exists, is that there are often ideals that are affirmed in what men and women are expected to be. And in this, there is an affirmation of the ideal and then there is an attack on that which fails to meet the ideal.
Basically there is an occupation with an ideal image and those that contradict the image in one's mind are subject to pressures to behave differently.
Those who are caught in living up to the ideal 'work by themselves', like the student who has internalized the ideal practices of a good student. They do not require any force, they're like the obedient child and this is a pervasive power that one doesn't need to enforce. But for those that are trouble makers who break the rules of the expected behaviours, who aren't restrained by limits o what is good and bad in their own psychology have to be forced through other means. Which iroincally is an expression of a lack of power, because one doesn't have a hold on the person psychologically/ideologically and has to use the crude and blunt pressures of various intensities. But it's less costly that everyone abide by the ideal standards.
http://monthlyreview.org/2011/12/01/alfred-hitchcock-presents-class-struggle/


> Unless its aggression is constant, capital does not get what it wants. But class aggression must meet cost-benefit analysis, like everything else. Thus, the less workers resist, the lower the costs of class aggression. In order for surplus extraction to proceed at maximum efficiency, that aggression must disguise itself. Generating and distributing illusion is a primary function of capital. It must propagate the belief that “the wealth and privileges of the few are based on natural, inborn superiority,”13 the belief that working people choose freely, that the existing system is efficient and just. Or, if not exactly efficient and just, it does not matter, because it is all there is. Thus not only is the system efficient—it is the only system. Even thinking about anything else is an invitation to chaos. Given the stakes involved, it is better for capital to erase the notion that there is a system at all. And that is indeed a common belief: there is no “system”—capitalism is simply reality, or nature, or the random workings of existence. It may not always have been there but it certainly always will be. Even the word “capitalism” must be handled with care: it is just “reality.” Since capitalism is not a system, whatever goes wrong is an accident or the result of the “bad choices” strangely popular with foolish victims.


This tendency of a ideological interpellation and in it's failure to create conformity, blunt force is true of maintaining any social standard. And this is true of women, though the standard isn't simply homogeneous and has evolved.
Today, gender is hidden in abstract individualism as applied to women with today's post-feminist notions (simply liberalism as applied to idealizations of women).See posts #1 and #2 for further explanations of this trend.
But basically, it's not as simple as women are valued, this is a simplistic point. Rather, should try and make it more specific to what is valued in women. Previously the ideal woman was the housewife, but now in many places, the emphasis has shifted to one's body.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2449/1/Postfeminist_media_culture_(LSERO).pdf


> One of the most striking aspects of postfeminist media culture is its obsessional preoccupation with the body. In a shift from earlier representational practices it appears that femininity is defined as a bodily property rather than (say) a social structural or psychological one. Instead of caring or nurturing or motherhood being regarded as central to femininity (all, of course, highly problematic and exclusionary) in today's media it is possession of a 'sexy body' that is presented as women's key (if not sole) source of identity. The body is presented simultaneously as women's source of power and as always already unruly and requiring constant monitoring, surveillance, discipline and remodeling (and consumer spending) in order to conform to ever narrower judgments of female attractiveness.


https://sci-hub.io/10.1177/0959353507084950


> If, in the 1950s, it was the home that was the ideal focus for women’s labour and attention and from which their ‘worth’ was judged, in the new millennium it is the body. A sleek, controlled figure is today essential for portraying success (Bordo, 1993), and each part of the body must be suitably toned, conditioned, waxed, moisturized, scented and attired. Today, the body is portrayed in advertising and many other parts of the media as the primary source of women’s capital. Indeed, there seems to have been a profound shift in the very definition of femininity such that it is defined as a bodily property rather than a social structural or psychological one. Instead of caring or nurturing or motherhood (all of course highly problematic and exclusionary), it is now possession of a ‘sexy body’ that is presented as women’s key source of identity. *This is captured vividly in an advert for Wonderbra® that shows a young woman wearing only a black, cleavage-enhancing bra. Situated between the breasts is the following slogan: ‘I can’t cook. Who cares?’ – making the point that her voluptuous body is far more important than any other feminine skills or attributes she may or may not possess.*


But this again isn't something that results in a homogeneous strength and emphasis.

And the changing needs of the economy and such push people into different areas.
And there's a lot to unpack in an example such as that there is some tendency of men to pursue sports at the cost of engineering and media when it seems to me that there has long been an emphasis on getting folks into the STEM fields due to the changes in the global economy and having to remain competitive. 
And in terms of being invisible, I have to ask whether that again purely stems from your own attention/focus and that it's not so much that they're necessarily not there but that they're invisible to your perspective because men are so normalized to many things that they're not novel. 
A bit like the point with the systemic review, if one actually examines certain things not purely directed by one's own focus but extensively through all that is relevant, one might find things that don't affirm the confines of one's focus.
A good example to startle the senses is the trend of photoshopping men out of images to show how few women there are in politics.
Men are photoshopped out of politics and here's the result - Telegraph

And even in regards to sex appeal, men have as much but you presumably also one sidedly emphasize what you imagine to be good in it. But I doubt in your asserted envy you're considering the costs of women being significantly valued for their appearance.
Just above can see a point about intensive self monitoring, because such a standard sets that one who fails to meet such preparation in one's looks might endure social costs for it. It also then presents a case of where at an extreme, people develop a constant sense of lacking that can only be temporarily satisfied through things like make up and that. No matte rhow much a person tells their partner that they're sexy and that they love them, it doesn't undo the constant social pressures and marketing that emphasize her value based in her appearance. Of course one can resist it... though only in degree because diminishing it's impact on you doesn't make it non-existent, especially socially as it prevails among others. 
It doesn't consider things like how women are positioned against an uncontrollable male sexuality thought to provoke behaviours that even whilst one says that they don't validate the behaviour, that they warn women that they shouldn't dress in a certain way. the positing of a threat being a basis to control women's behaviour through a sometimes almost illusory sense of control to make themselves safe from harassment under the guise that they'll be safe if they behave as expected. 

Though it is indeed the case that women have improved their position and status some through improvement in their class position (ie more women now allowed to own property and pursue their own wealth). Though this again needs to give attention to the fact that some rich/wealthy woman based on her class position isn't exactly comparable to women of the working class. 
She will have the resources and status to avoid detriment to her more so than those who are more economically vulnerable. Which gives them the sort of freedom to do that which was stereotyped as masculine behaviour but was actually were reflection of the social positions and autonomy men had that women were deprived of. 
Generally a lot of status goes along with one's class position, though there can be cultural elements that still act upon a person in spite of their actual wealth because of the low overall status of one's demographic in society.
A distinction needs to be made between status inequality and positional inequality, because someone like Former Australian PM Julia Gillard may have been upper class and be of a high position as PM of Australia but she as a woman was still subject to misogyny.

The whole trophy for participation thing I speculate may be is played up in the same vein as THEY'RE GONNA BAN CHRISTMAS AND MAKE US SAY HAPPY HOLIDAYS! POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GOOOOOONNNEEE MAAAAAAAAD! hahahaha XD
But i think Alfie Kohn is a good case for at least being critical of competition as an inherent virtue in itself and instead seeing that purposely setting up antagonism between kids isn't inherently good. The point being that one shouldn't be attached to empty maxims and instead make better approximations about reality. Such that one shouldn't purely shield one from developing skills through the challenges one will necessarily face in growing up, but at the same time, you don't place overwhelming challenges upon a child.
Lev Vygotsky is useful in this regard that a child's development is best conceptualized in a social manner where they learn and develop best by keeping them in a range where they're able to do a task but haven't mastered it yet and through support quickly learn. The concern that in a tough love emphasis, is that whilst some are simply being practical about their kid and not couching them too much, others would logically lead to a justification for ill treatment of a child or neglect because at an extreme if accepted in it's simplicity, a child should do better due to adversity. But those that develop best actually have a lot of love and support, a safe space, that they are challenged by they aren't without a safety net to help them back up and charge head on. The point balance being in letting your child push themselves instead of making them purely dependent on you, making them exert themselves and know the value of it, but not overwhelming them.


----------



## Asity (May 12, 2014)

With meeting people being like it is today (i.e. browsing through a catalogue with pictures and brief descriptions of people to see who you want to meet), it's probably "people" in general who are losing their value.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Riven said:


> So, it seems like that today, men aren't relevant or appreciated. No one, at least in the West, seems to admire their traits, physical and sometimes otherwise. However, I am against the prospect of forcing men to fit into a mold in order to presumably satisfy society's neds - it might be counter-productive, such as forcing a man to be good into sports when he has other equally useful vocations, like engineering or media. At the same time, though, I believe that men have a rather aloof personality which makes them that way.
> 
> I don't know, but these days, guys seem to be rather invisible in the media aside from the fact that they're that token hero in some action film, and I feel like that that's one of their only sources of worth. Women are valued for much more these days, such as for being able to fulfill what would have been considered men's roles in the past.
> 
> I have to admit, I envy women for some of the things they're appreciated for, such as their sex appeal. From what I have seen, even straight women are able to appreciate what makes a woman attractive. Men, not so much.


I think this belief you have speaks more about yourself and how you view the world and your own self esteem rather than it being objectively true (because it isn't).


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Wow


I didn't know men got some worth 

I thought their penis is the only one good thing about their existence


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Joke. I love guys because they make me horny. 

Thanks 


Thanks to my crushes.. To my online crush i love you for real.. Hihi ♡ 

I really appreciate your existence 


Please tease me more and more and more and more


----------



## Kaboomz (Jun 14, 2016)

Riven said:


> So, it seems like that today, men aren't relevant or appreciated. No one, at least in the West, seems to admire their traits, physical and sometimes otherwise. However, I am against the prospect of forcing men to fit into a mold in order to presumably satisfy society's neds - it might be counter-productive, such as forcing a man to be good into sports when he has other equally useful vocations, like engineering or media. At the same time, though, I believe that men have a rather aloof personality which makes them that way.


you think "men" (half the human race?) have an "aloof" personality? that seems pretty ridiculous when you post it on a personality forum...does this include the efjs men etc? 



> I don't know, but these days, guys seem to be rather invisible in the media aside from the fact that they're that token hero in some action film, and I feel like that that's one of their only sources of worth. Women are valued for much more these days, such as for being able to fulfill what would have been considered men's roles in the past.


i'm not american, but the only woman of consequence in western media is angela merkel. everything else is trump, kim jong un and putin. where are you seeing the rather invisible side of male media? ru paul's drag race? 



> I have to admit, I envy women for some of the things they're appreciated for, such as their sex appeal. From what I have seen, even straight women are able to appreciate what makes a woman attractive. Men, not so much.


insecure men are terrified to express their appreciation for other guys because they think it makes them look gay, but the world exploits and capitalizes on male beauty just as much as it does with women. it's not a new thing. the statue of david is half a millenia old, for example. 

you seem a little bias


----------



## Index (May 17, 2017)

atamagasuita said:


> Joke. I love guys because they make me horny.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> ...


Could somebody coherently explain what I just read?


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

" I have to be the strong and competent hero _again_!? Can't I be the pitiful damsel or sex object!? That is soooo much better!"

That's some funny shit dude. Are you a professional satirist!? 




Index said:


> Could somebody coherently explain what I just read?


Nope, I'm afraid I don't have a clue either.


----------



## martinkunev (Mar 23, 2017)

I haven't seen a trend about who gets appreciated more.

I have trouble understanding those who do something just to get acknowledgement. You should do something when you want to and you think it's the right thing to do. Being appreciated is nice, but it's just a side effect that can make you feel better.

You say women are appreciated in media, somebody else says they are turned into sexual objects. In my experience, in movies men are those who usually do the serious deeds and women are just enablers. I think this has more to do with culture - people are still compliant to gender roles to an extent. There are always exceptions - things like Hidden Figures, Game of Thrones, the new Star Wars come to mind. The fact that all these are relatively recent indicates society is changing to become more egalitarian.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

atamagasuita said:


> Wow
> 
> 
> I didn't know men got some worth
> ...


Agree. Men are biologically more expendable and live in a much more competitive environment than women, biologically.

Learning this important insight: Be sad or not be sad, life continues regardless.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Index said:


> Could somebody coherently explain what I just read?


Your dick and bad smell makes me horny. That's all.

When i say "your"

I'm referring to a male person i like.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

pwowq said:


> Agree. Men are biologically more expendable and live in a much more competitive environment than women, biologically.
> 
> Learning this important insight: Be sad or not be sad, life continues regardless.


Good thing you're aware of that.

Well, whether you're a girl or a guy, it's all the same.

For ugly girls, they don't receive a special treatment like the beautiful girls do.

So basically, ugly girls = guys are much equal.

So guys, just think you're an ugly girl.

Okay? XD


----------



## Witch of Oreo (Jun 23, 2014)

atamagasuita said:


> Good thing you're aware of that.
> 
> Well, whether you're a girl or a guy, it's all the same.
> 
> ...


We are not you.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Witch of Oreo said:


> We are not you.


I'm not you either.

And reality bites. That's the hard fact.

Just accept it.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

lolalalah said:


> I think anyone should complain if they have a problem with being punched in the face.
> 
> I have guy friends and I like how they don't make a terrible distinction between ourselves when we talk or hang out. They don't hit each other. Not to hurt each other, at least. A punch to the shoulder may happen, but this is how they behave towards me too, and I am fine with it (as this is how I am towards my girl friends too).
> 
> Why insist on caveman behaviour towards your fellow men when they don't like it? If they're ok with that, then alright. There are women who like to jump in the mud and wrestle too.


Im not debating the behaviour it is how it is. Im just wondering how women who state "They want to be treated like a man" believe men on the whole treat each other. I am using extreme cases, but as far as respect goes, the male friends I have greatest respect for, have proven themselves over and over again, the respect does not come for nothing, which I believe to outsiders (to the group) they believe it does so they believe that they should be treated the same even though they have not earned that position. If someone hasnt proven themselves, then they will just get civil behaviour at the most as opposed to being outright ignored (they have not earned any attention) regardless of gender.


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Im not debating the behaviour it is how it is. Im just wondering how women who state "They want to be treated like a man" believe men on the whole treat each other. I am using extreme cases, but as far as respect goes, the male friends I have greatest respect for, have proven themselves over and over again, the respect does not come for nothing, which I believe to outsiders (to the group) they believe it does so they believe that they should be treated the same even though they have not earned that position. If someone hasnt proven themselves, then they will just get civil behaviour at the most as opposed to being outright ignored (they have not earned any attention) regardless of gender.


Yet I cant help but notice men everywhere, perhaps out of their 'male ego' or satisfaction at having been born male, seem to have this deep respect for their fellow men, which I am envious of sometimes. Women need to work harder to get that kind of respect from them.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

lolalalah said:


> Yet I cant help but notice men everywhere, perhaps out of their 'male ego' or satisfaction at having been born male, seem to have this deep respect for their fellow men, which I am envious of sometimes. Women need to work harder to get that kind of respect from them.


You are probably focussing on the respect for the men who have done something to prove themselves. Take a man who has done nothing with their life or has done nothing and complains its unfair, then you will notice that they get treated like shit.

Also you mention respect, from my own experiences, the guys who get respect do not do what they do just for respect. The ones who just do stuff for the sole purpose of respect, it shows through what there intentions are.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

lolalalah said:


> There are women who like to jump in the mud and wrestle too.


Well that is the whole issue, isn't it? Just because some women like that, all women should be treated as if they like that too? Because that's what you´re saying. We should create 1 type of behaviour that can be applied to all people regardless of their gender. And that's just really the opposite of what we should do.

As was mentioned before, it depends on the person, how they want to be treated. How people want to be treated depends on their personality. In most people their gender is an important part of their personality. So why should we ignore that? We should always consider it.

You want men to treat everyone else like men? Then how should women treat eachother? The way men treat eachother? Or should men treat eachother the way women treat eachother? Or perhaps you just want everyone to treat everyone else the same way you treat everyone else? It makes no sense what you´re saying. There is no single size fits all here.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Peter said:


> Well that is the whole issue, isn't it? Just because some women like that, all women should be treated as if they like that too? Because that's what you´re saying. We should create 1 type of behaviour that can be applied to all people regardless of their gender. And that's just really the opposite of what we should do.
> 
> As was mentioned before, it depends on the person, how they want to be treated. How people want to be treated depends on their personality. In most people their gender is an important part of their personality. So why should we ignore that? We should always consider it.
> 
> You want men to treat everyone else like men? Then how should women treat eachother? The way men treat eachother? Or should men treat eachother the way women treat eachother? Or perhaps you just want everyone to treat everyone else the same way you treat everyone else? It makes no sense what you´re saying. There is no single size fits all here.


I totally agree with what you say. I mentioned how some men treat each other and straight the way its a bad thing. So how the hell do people who say this want to be treated.

I know how I treat men personally and its all an individual thing, there is no one size fits all.

I will use my Army time as an example. When I was a recruit and when I was in my first unit fresh out of the factory, I had no respect, why should I? I did the shit jobs, I mopped the floors, I did a lot of guard duties, I got the shit tasks. Although I could pass fitness tests, I wasnt pushing myself.

After I did my first tours, I got a bit more respect, I had earned it. When I started running in my own time, people saw I was pushing myself, I got a bit more respect. When I proved myself in a life or death situation (think mortar shells and being able to stay calm and focussed) I got a hell of a lot more repect. And so on. None of it was given just because I have a penis however.

Now outside the army, it is not actually so clear how respect is earned, however I personally find the principle stays the same, stay focussed, be proactive and have a purpose. Thats what creates respect. However, do people respect me, I dont know and I dont care. I would rather stay focussed on my goals rather than focussing on how much respect I have.

Now I know someone will probably just say repsect should be given not earned, but if that were true, then respect would have no value. And I will pre-empt this by asking my normal question, are you talking about repsect or just basic manners and civil behaviour?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Caveman Dreams said:


> OK firstly men are not praised for just being men I agree.
> 
> However if you look back through history, men never were. They have always had to prove themselves via some form of Rite of Passage.
> 
> ...


Women have "rites of passage" too, they are just not the competitive type that is visible to the outsider sex. For example, during teen years when we start experiment with make up and shit, I was often chastised for not doing the same, even called not a real woman. As a woman, if you don't do whatever is "in", you are deemed less. This starts from petty shit like barbie dolls and makeup and escalates up to marriage and motherhood depending on the age group. Men are pressured to earn money and status, sure, but everything else they have the freedom to choose much more so than women do.


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Peter said:


> Well that is the whole issue, isn't it? Just because some women like that, all women should be treated as if they like that too? Because that's what you´re saying. We should create 1 type of behaviour that can be applied to all people regardless of their gender. And that's just really the opposite of what we should do.
> 
> As was mentioned before, it depends on the person, how they want to be treated. How people want to be treated depends on their personality. In most people their gender is an important part of their personality. So why should we ignore that? We should always consider it.
> 
> You want men to treat everyone else like men? Then how should women treat eachother? The way men treat eachother? Or should men treat eachother the way women treat eachother? Or perhaps you just want everyone to treat everyone else the same way you treat everyone else? It makes no sense what you´re saying. There is no single size fits all here.


It makes no sense because I did not say men should treat everyone like cavemen. In my experience they don't do it to each other either, as violent cases are forms of extreme cases. Most young men nowadays are more 'effeminate', which really just means more outspokenly sensitive, and civil. 

I agree we should treat someone as an individual, as one's preference depends on the person they are. This thinking is what made me attack your post where you generealise 'women don't want to be treated like men'.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Red Panda said:


> Women have "rites of passage" too, they are just not the competitive type that is visible to the outsider sex. For example, during teen years when we start experiment with make up and shit, I was often chastised for not doing the same, even called not a real woman. As a woman, if you don't do whatever is "in", you are deemed less. This starts from petty shit like barbie dolls and makeup and escalates up to marriage and motherhood depending on the age group. Men are pressured to earn money and status, sure, but everything else they have the freedom to choose much more so than women do.


I can believe that. I can also relate as I am someone who does not like football, it is just as bad. First the rumours start that your gay as you dont like football, then the physical bullying starts because your deemed as gay. When really there is just a dislike of football.

I really dont want a which gender has it the toughest as Im sure its all just swings and roundabouts. 

The football thing still carries on throughout life, even at age 35 Ive noticed. But then again in the UK, football is almost a religion. Just one of those things I have had to learn to deal with as opposed to joining the Status Quo and pretending to like football. A lot of the male population think there is something wrong with me as I dont like football, its just a fact of life, has nothing to d o with my worth however unless I base my worth on what strangers who are obsessed with football think of me.


----------



## lolalalah (Aug 1, 2015)

Caveman Dreams said:


> I will use my Army time as an example. When I was a recruit and when I was in my first unit fresh out of the factory, I had no respect, why should I? I did the shit jobs, I mopped the floors, I did a lot of guard duties, I got the shit tasks. Although I could pass fitness tests, I wasnt pushing myself.
> 
> After I did my first tours, I got a bit more respect, I had earned it. When I started running in my own time, people saw I was pushing myself, I got a bit more respect. When I proved myself in a life or death situation (think mortar shells and being able to stay calm and focussed) I got a hell of a lot more repect. And so on. None of it was given just because I have a penis however.


This is how one should earn respect, alright. My envy is stemmed from the fact most people wouldn't imagine a woman could ever want or be ready to do any of that, which is a false assumption.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

lolalalah said:


> It makes no sense because I did not say men should treat everyone like cavemen. In my experience they don't do it to each other either, as violent cases are forms of extreme cases. *Most young men nowadays are more 'effeminate', which really just means more outspokenly sensitive, and civil. *
> 
> I agree we should treat someone as an individual, as one's preference depends on the person they are. This thinking is what made me attack your post where you generealise 'women don't want to be treated like men'.


I do notice your mentioning more the character traits of the younger generation which isnt something I base my respect on, as opposed to how they handle situations and what they achieve in life. Maybe we are both looking at different things here. 

However as this is the S&R forum, I am going to say that what I respect in a person in terms of them being part of team in the workplace and what I am attracted to in a potential partner are too very different things.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

lolalalah said:


> This is how one should earn respect, alright. My envy is stemmed from the fact most people wouldn't imagine a woman could ever want or be ready to do any of that, which is a false assumption.


Ok again as ex-military I have a different view. I could pin point certain women in the forces that I knew and say the negative view was justified, but then again I could single out a few men who would be just as bad. Same with positive things. Again case by case. Im probably not the person who you need to explain these things to, Ive seen Women out perform the majority of men quite easily.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

lolalalah said:


> It makes no sense because I did not say men should treat everyone like cavemen. In my experience they don't do it to each other either, as violent cases are forms of extreme cases. Most young men nowadays are more 'effeminate', which really just means more outspokenly sensitive, and civil.
> 
> I agree we should treat someone as an individual, as one's preference depends on the person they are. This thinking is what made me attack your post where you generealise 'women don't want to be treated like men'.


Cavemen behaviour is more than just being violent. It's taking what you want without giving a shit about others, it's pushing people out of the way because you want something, etc. Just rude behaviour basically. (Actually, I don't believe cavemen really behaved like that. But let's just assume that "cavemen behaviour" means not giving a shit about anyone but yourself.)


And I stand by what I said: "women don't want to be treated like they´re men." 

You think in between your male friends you are treated the same as they treat eachother. What you are not aware of is that they treat you the same as they treat eachother,.... while you are around. When you´re not around, they behave differently and there is no way you can ever experience that unless you spy on them for a while.

I've seen it happen on the work floor. You have a department with just men in there, and their behaviour is problematic. All you have to do is hire 1 woman and add her to the department and their behaviour improves 10 times. (I'm not saying that a group of just men will always behave bad by the way. I'm trying to show how the presence of just 1 woman in a group of men, changes their behaviour. The same is true the other way around as well.)

It's just the way it is. It won't change because it's human nature.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

lolalalah said:


> This is how one should earn respect, alright. My envy is stemmed from the fact most people wouldn't imagine a woman could ever want or be ready to do any of that, which is a false assumption.


Why would you assume that? Sure, more men than women could do that. But we live in a society where individualism is held high and for a good reason. It allows for people to develop themselves regardless of their gender (or race, or religion, or whatever.)


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Riven said:


> At this stage, I could quit vidya, but I have this German guy I'm playing with that has had a rather short temper :/ At the very least, I can tell them that I'm gonna take a break when study time comes. I would like to use my computer for more creative pursuits, such as creating a program.
> 
> Also, to rebuke that point slightly, my brother is on social media a lot, but he's using it to promote himself and to expand his photography portfolio. He's looking to get paid for it though, but I don't know how he's going to achieve that. If I were to get into the same thing, I'd use it almost exclusively to further a cultural cause, not so much to profit off of it.
> 
> As for the haters, I guess that people hate me since I complain a lot.


Im going to use your brother as an example, if he makes a living through that then he will probably get more respect than someone who does a 9 - 5 office job. However 15 years ago, this probably wouldnt of even been possible. Sure he may not succeed but he is willing to take the risk, hence the respect.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Im going to use your brother as an example, if he makes a living through that then he will probably get more respect than someone who does a 9 - 5 office job. However 15 years ago, this probably wouldnt of even been possible. Sure he may not succeed but he is willing to take the risk, hence the respect.


My goals are different - I don't want to have to be driven by money to get the ideas I want out there, because you'll have to ditch them if they're making you lose money. This is probably one thing I hate about being an adult (male) . Sure, I can get involved in a non-profit organisation, but someone said here that men are pressured to making a living for themselves. 

While I would like to work for something that doesn't do so for profit, it won't pay for any of my individual projects and causes I want to do outside of work. This might be a bit off topic though.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Riven said:


> My goals are different - I don't want to have to be driven by money to get the ideas I want out there, because you'll have to ditch them if they're making you lose money. This is probably one thing I hate about being an adult (male) . Sure, I can get involved in a non-profit organisation, but someone said here that men are pressured to making a living for themselves.
> 
> While I would like to work for something that doesn't do so for profit, it won't pay for any of my individual projects and causes I want to do outside of work. This might be a bit off topic though.


Well good luck with that, personally I have bills to pay and food to buy so making a living is always a goal for me.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Well good luck with that, personally I have bills to pay and food to buy so making a living is always a goal for me.


Are you gonna base your life on your career? If you enjoy it, you might, and if are willing to ditch stuff that your company will tell you to
I'd only make a living for the necessities and for the things that I want out there in the real world that would be too unprofitable for companies to implement especially if done for free.


----------



## Kaboomz (Jun 14, 2016)

Riven said:


> My goals are different - I don't want to have to be driven by money to get the ideas I want out there, because you'll have to ditch them if they're making you lose money. This is probably one thing I hate about being an adult (male) . Sure, I can get involved in a non-profit organisation, but someone said here that men are pressured to making a living for themselves.
> 
> While I would like to work for something that doesn't do so for profit, it won't pay for any of my individual projects and causes I want to do outside of work. This might be a bit off topic though.


some people have it easier in terms of money, it's not a gender thing, it's an socio-economic issue. some people are just born into richer families with more opportunity. 

getting to do what you want without financial concern is a luxury most of us won't have, so being financially independent might be expected of men, but it's so fundamental to a decent standard of life that everyone should be striving for it anyway, regardless of their sex. working a part time job to pay the bills is hardly going to suffocate your creativity. 20-30 hrs a week of your life in order to spend the rest doing what you want seems a relatively fair trade off if you're not picky about how you live

unless your individual projects require huge financial investment, gender is relatively meaningless to them. you could argue that males tend to benefit most from inheritance and family name and so they stand to benefit more as the rich become richer, but even that isn't true anymore because everyone is so concerned with equality that law no longer requires a man to be in the family


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Riven said:


> Are you gonna base your life on your career? If you enjoy it, you might, and if are willing to ditch stuff that your company will tell you to
> I'd only make a living for the necessities and for the things that I want out there in the real world that would be too unprofitable for companies to implement especially if done for free.


No Im not going to base my life on it, but on the other hand with the vast amount of optons out there, I am going to find a career that I am personally interested in for other reasons than just money. Im going to need money regardless, so may as well generate it doing something I enjoy as opposed to something I dont enjoy.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Riven said:


> Are you gonna base your life on your career? If you enjoy it, you might, and if are willing to ditch stuff that your company will tell you to
> I'd only make a living for the necessities and for the things that I want out there in the real world that would be too unprofitable for companies to implement especially if done for free.


Wanting to have enough money to live on is not basing your life on your career, it'd being realistic.
Unless you inherit money or marry into money, you gotta work to live. Its different than living to work. 
@Caveman Dreams strikes me as the work hard play hard type.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

pilgrim_12 said:


> Sorry, I wasn't answering that question. I didn't know you asked it.
> 
> Honestly, you'd have to ask women and then you would get a bunch of general stuff that's about being able to take care of yourself and being who you are. Once that's out of the way, then they have to feel something and that is chemistry that you can't change, nor can she.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if men would want anything more than a hot body from a woman and perhaps a bit of stoicism. In some cases, they might just want a woman who is decently attractive who gets them. 

I read on another forum about how men "can smell desperation". I've read something else about how "women can smell desperation" as well - to me, all it comes down to is essentially what the dude or chick is packing on there, and sometimes how they come across. 

Determining whether a woman likes a sensitive guy or not, or if a guy likes a demure or assertive girl, is a bit like determining where quantum particles will be at any given time. 

Sadly, it's a bit more predictable with guys, since guys who have assertive girlfriends are generally deemed to be with them because they're too afraid to admit they're losers or something, and many other guys with assertive girlfriends complain how they can get bossy or bitchy.


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

Riven said:


> I'm not sure if men would want anything more than a hot body from a woman and perhaps a bit of stoicism. In some cases, they might just want a woman who is decently attractive who gets them.


With maturity, you'll see there are many women who are "hot". When you are young, it is usually more important that she is pretty and so forth. As you get older, you see the beauty in women that is more than skin deep. There is much more to a woman than her body. It's normal or seems so, that younger folks who are in better shape, usually, want similar and are less interested in long-term relationships. 






Riven said:


> I read on another forum about how men "can smell desperation". I've read something else about how "women can smell desperation" as well - to me, all it comes down to is essentially what the dude or chick is packing on there, and sometimes how they come across.


No one wants to be needed. We all want to be wanted. When love comes freely because we choose to love someone, it is very fulfilling for both. When we need them for a time and then find our way, we lose that love and it becomes a chore to show them we love them. It becomes work. 

Nothing is perfect. Sometimes, it still is work, but that's much less when that love is freely given and returned. 






Riven said:


> Determining whether a woman likes a sensitive guy or not, or if a guy likes a demure or assertive girl, is a bit like determining where quantum particles will be at any given time.


haha That's where dating comes into that equation. You have to figure out if you even like each other. Sure, you wanna screw, but do you like each other? How compatible are you? Sure one part fits another and it feels good, but what about those times in between? Do you want to run for the hills, screaming? 

It takes knowing yourself first, before you can know if someone is right for you. Discover who you are and you will be better at choosing the most compatible women and you will not feel so badly when it doesn't work out. 





Riven said:


> Sadly, it's a bit more predictable with guys, since guys who have assertive girlfriends are generally deemed to be with them because they're too afraid to admit they're losers or something, and many other guys with assertive girlfriends complain how they can get bossy or bitchy.



It's not really more predictable for women. They talk like crazy among themselves trying to figure out men. Collectively, it's easier because they have more information. Men don't talk as much, but should be. 

Men should have their own little clubs or groups with other men of all ages and types to have some good clean fun with and talk about these types of things. Lot's of men don't want to talk about this stuff, so you'll have to be careful who you open up with. You can get burned badly. Don't be too open until you find a few men who are friends.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Antipode said:


> I'm more into attractive faces. Does he have one of those?


I don't find his face attractive. Just average face.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Riven said:


> I kind of support this participation trophy deal. I can see why people oppose it, but I don't know, perhaps it might be just a tiny bit better to just offer them that participation trophy than have to deal with them crying non-stop for finishing last at the school race because they'll never amount to anything, at least during that situation.


Deny a child a participation trophy. and they will cry for a little while. Grant a child a participation trophy, and they will cry for a lifetime.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

atamagasuita said:


> I don't find his face attractive. Just average face.


Oh. Oh, I see.


----------



## atamagasuita (May 15, 2016)

Antipode said:


> Oh. Oh, I see.


But he gets a lot of girls on that kind of face


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

pilgrim_12 said:


> With maturity, you'll see there are many women who are "hot". When you are young, it is usually more important that she is pretty and so forth. As you get older, you see the beauty in women that is more than skin deep. There is much more to a woman than her body. It's normal or seems so, that younger folks who are in better shape, usually, want similar and are less interested in long-term relationships.


Nah, libido starts going, AND they get ugly. You REALLY don't want to get into the internal effects of dating, fucking around, female privilege, and time. Cock carousel, ring any bells? Like living with ghosts and myopic baggage? Like having to run a shittier gauntlet for less than those who got in easier before? Oh, but "Women are wonderful" right? Totally not a propaganda slogan...



> No one wants to be needed. We all want to be wanted. When love comes freely because we choose to love someone, it is very fulfilling for both. When we need them for a time and then find our way, we lose that love and it becomes a chore to show them we love them. It becomes work.


Love is no choice. That's beyond naive. You got no battle scars from the damnation of loving an enemy? Dating is work, and the shit's on you as the guy. You a pretty boy in the minority fuck pool or somehow miss that? You must pay, even outright out of your wallet, or YOU are "cheap", not her even if she bitches explicitly about it. She sets the tolls. The market doesn't improve over time. There's just more shit and less bread. You get to pay for being less to her than her hook-ups since she can fuck up but has to date across, which she'll see as down, relatively. Research has already shown that. The majority of women regard the majority of men as below average. Apex fallacy's a bitch, and you're not even allow to mention it in public or usually any mixed company. Lots of shit works that way. Welcome to the social sewer. "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Nephandus said:


> Nah, libido starts going, AND they get ugly. You REALLY don't want to get into the internal effects of dating, fucking around, female privilege, and time. Cock carousel, ring any bells? Like living with ghosts and myopic baggage? Like having to run a shittier gauntlet for less than those who got in easier before? Oh, but "Women are wonderful" right? Totally not a propaganda slogan...
> 
> 
> 
> Love is no choice. That's beyond naive. You got no battle scars from the damnation of loving an enemy? Dating is work, and the shit's on you as the guy. You a pretty boy in the minority fuck pool or somehow miss that? You must pay, even outright out of your wallet, or YOU are "cheap", not her even if she bitches explicitly about it. She sets the tolls. The market doesn't improve over time. There's just more shit and less bread. You get to pay for being less to her than her hook-ups since she can fuck up but has to date across, which she'll see as down, relatively. Research has already shown that. *The majority of women regard the majority of men as below average.* Apex fallacy's a bitch, and you're not even allow to mention it in public or usually any mixed company. Lots of shit works that way. Welcome to the social sewer. "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."


Yeah, at this point I'd rather all girls at least tried to become gay, IDK. Only thing that can help us are more resources.


----------



## Panorama (Jul 19, 2017)

Riven said:


> Yeah, at this point I'd rather all girls at least tried to become gay, IDK.


A few drinks and many of them are willing. If there are women who are career orientated and able to support them then I suppose the change is not all that difficult, so your wish may come true. 

Believe it or not, there are some women who are lamenting the death of the traditional male. 



> Only thing that can help us are more resources.


What do you mean by 'resources'?


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Panorama said:


> A few drinks and many of them are willing. If there are women who are career orientated are able to support them then I suppose the change is not all that difficult, so your wish may come true.
> 
> Believe it or not, there are some women who are lamenting the death of the traditional male.
> 
> ...


The stuff that women can be showered in. But yeah, I've been thinking about how us guys should be genetically engineered to resemble women a bit more or something. It'll make no difference unless we were thrust back into the dark ages.


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

Nephandus said:


> Nah, libido starts going, AND they get ugly. You REALLY don't want to get into the internal effects of dating, fucking around, female privilege, and time. Cock carousel, ring any bells? Like living with ghosts and myopic baggage? Like having to run a shittier gauntlet for less than those who got in easier before? Oh, but "Women are wonderful" right? Totally not a propaganda slogan...



What or whom do you blame for the attitudes of these women who like cock carousels and then become negative?





Nephandus said:


> Love is no choice. That's beyond naive.


How do you know if someone loves you? 

Do they have a choice to show you in a way that you find loving? 

I agree we can't help who we find attractive. That's not love. 





Nephandus said:


> You got no battle scars from the damnation of loving an enemy?


More than I care to talk about. Those were actions of love that I gave. They were induced by feelings, but not controlled by them. 





Nephandus said:


> Dating is work, and the shit's on you as the guy. You a pretty boy in the minority fuck pool or somehow miss that?


It's only work, if you aren't interested. If you think of women as a cum dump that will simply fall into your bed at you beck and call, you will miss the mark most of the time. Even those you may think are that type, have their personal boundaries. 

If you simply like women, you will find their company to be interesting, amusing, and pleasant, whether you end up in the sack or not. 





Nephandus said:


> You must pay, even outright out of your wallet, or YOU are "cheap", not her even if she bitches explicitly about it. She sets the tolls. The market doesn't improve over time. There's just more shit and less bread. You get to pay for being less to her than her hook-ups since she can fuck up but has to date across, which she'll see as down, relatively. Research has already shown that.


Got a link or two? I'd like to read what you have. 

I'm pretty sure women can attest to what they are paying when they date a man. It may not always be money, but how would you like to go out with a guy like you? Sorry, but I think it would be tough for them. 




Nephandus said:


> The majority of women regard the majority of men as below average. Apex fallacy's a bitch, and you're not even allow to mention it in public or usually any mixed company. Lots of shit works that way. Welcome to the social sewer. "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."


So, you want to tell the woman you are dating that you believe she is hooked on group think and has no mind of her own? Work on your beliefs. Maybe some are like that. Some. Maybe.

Pretty much everyone rules over me, by that quote. 

What do you think causes some women to believe that men are less than average? What fallacies do you think are prevalent in some women's beliefs that still make them think they need a man to make more money than them, take care of them, be reasonably attractive to them, be responsible, and keep them safe?


----------



## Panorama (Jul 19, 2017)

Peter said:


> People, especially in the USA, are making more than ever before. That's true in all job levels.


"All job levels?" Where are you getting this from?

Hate to burst your bubble there champ. 

Everyone In America Is Even More Broke Than You Think

Americans are spending more, but earning less, according to Pew - Mar. 30, 2016

U.S. Credit Card Debt Tops $1 Trillion for the First Time Since the Recession














> Just go to a museum and see how people lived 40 years ago. Then go check how they lived 80 years ago. Then 120 years ago.


They barely had TVs 40 years ago - did they even have electricity 120 years ago? Besides, this 'proof' of yours has nothing to do with women entering the workforce over the past 10 to 20 years. 


What does the current cost of living compare to 20 years ago? | Investopedia

The same method can be applied to see if household incomes have similarly increased. The median household income in 1994 was $32,264. The most recent year with full data available is 2013, so adjusting for inflation as of that year gives a median income of $51,868. The Census Bureau reports that the actual median income was $51,939, only slightly higher than the predicted figure. *Taken together, these figures indicate that while the average person is still making the same amount of money when accounting for inflation, prices for many of the daily necessities have gone up considerably, which means that each dollar earned does, in fact, buy less than it did 20 years ago.*


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

Panorama said:


> Hate to burst your bubble there champ.
> 
> Everyone In America Is Even More Broke Than You Think
> 
> ...



That hurt. 2017 - 40 = 1977 

I was 15 years old. 

Look at some of the debut dates in this list. I think one of them is 1948?





> Series on air in 1977[edit]
> 
> _Starsky and Hutch_
> _American Bandstand_ (1952–1989)
> ...






> The first electric battery was made in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. In 1878 Thomas Edison gave us the electric light bulb. So in answer to your question yes electricity was in use 100 years ago.
> 
> Did they have electric 100 years ago


Come on now, that was an easy search. ha!


----------



## Panorama (Jul 19, 2017)

Riven said:


> The stuff that women can be showered in. But yeah, I've been thinking about how us guys should be genetically engineered to resemble women a bit more or something. It'll make no difference unless we were thrust back into the dark ages.



Genetic engineering is a bit extreme, but it's acceptable for guys these days to date women based on their career prospects. I've seen it myself, guys who take a care of themselves and who generally rate 7-9/10 on the looks scale, they domesticate themselves and bag themselves a career-women, corporate lawyers and they like are often after a partner who is not looking to battle it out on the management ladder.



pilgrim_12 said:


> That hurt. 2017 - 40 = 1977
> 
> Come on now, that was an easy search. ha!


Yeah, I thought again and reworded it


----------



## Skeletalz (Feb 21, 2015)

Toru Okada said:


>


I love this meme :laughing:


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

BTW (I'm pretty sure the women are trying to save face in these numbers):


Nephandus said:


> * *





pilgrim_12 said:


> What or whom do you blame for the attitudes of these women who like cock carousels and then become negative?


The retardation that is the dating market (and little things like all levels of courts, no less). Men throw resources, time, and their self-respect at women in (super)ego-loaded, brow-beaten-down hopes to get their dicks wet without being creepshamed. Women completely overestimate their own worth based on this warped little set of games ...AND all the kid gloves, like fucking murder discounts or how it's acceptable for them to back each other even openly in the name of their gender. Need we get into acceptable violence? We do live a certain world with tons of double standards. Even notice who's considered more "mature" despite being allowed to act like an occasional psychotic brat and even brag about it? There are open campaigns to lie about this shit and silence any dissenters, no matter how blatant it gets. Dumb asshole behaviors are regarded completely different when "sensitive"/""mature"/"strong"/etc. women do it.



> How do you know if someone loves you?
> 
> Do they have a choice to show you in a way that you find loving?
> 
> I agree we can't help who we find attractive. That's not love.


Mostly, they just fuck with me instead of fucking off. Love's mostly been a cage to me. So far none were of any worth. We don't choose who we love or who loves us. At best, we can choose exposure, though circumstance can force even that.

Women even pretending any romantic interest have gone from awkward and confus-ed/ing teenagers to proudly abusive old cunts who were obviously surprised I didn't take their abuse. That's all I've experienced sans a minority desperate basketcase, who mostly went full cunt when rejected. That's women as I know them in any supposedly romantic context. I've never met ANY others... Including those that wanted my babies. Gay males were far more respectful, even when they were sexually direct and overly persistent. There's a fucking huge difference in behavior. Sexually aggressive men have been far nicer people than any of the women, which ought to tell you something...



> It's only work, if you aren't interested. If you think of women as a cum dump that will simply fall into your bed at you beck and call, you will miss the mark most of the time. Even those you may think are that type, have their personal boundaries.
> 
> If you simply like women, you will find their company to be interesting, amusing, and pleasant, whether you end up in the sack or not.


It's work no matter what. It's shit I don't want to do to roll some dice that'll probably fail instantly. YOU bloody mentioned compatibility yourself. Dating is a shitty search function with rancid culture that destroys anything I'm actually after. I've never tried to get laid in my life. I don't want the inevitable slag that did that shit either. I don't simply like women anymore than I like random men. WTF? You wouldn't expect me to like random ass men, would you? What stoned your gord that you think I'm suppose to like random ass women? They're a greater pain in the ass that sexually aggressive gay dudes. I don't do male-bonding, and that retardation is less offensive than the flagrant double-standards and utter worthlessness that is dealing with random women, even in private. Shit, in public, I'm a fucking target at their leisure, for anything from spontaneous creepshaming to false accusation to police, which are statistically VERY safe for her to pull. I can even hit violent males back, though they're far less likely to try that shit, much less expect to be safe in the process.



> Got a link or two? I'd like to read what you have.
> 
> I'm pretty sure women can attest to what they are paying when they date a man. It may not always be money, but how would you like to go out with a guy like you? Sorry, but I think it would be tough for them.


I have to deal with them TOO AND PAY on top of it. WTF? We're both there with the other... How does it sound like I like going out with them? How the fuck did you miss that? You wouldn't say that facially dumb shit to a complaining woman. How misandrously myopic is your view of dating? The whole fucked process is a necessary evil at best; THEN, I fucking "owe" them shit, including a bloated unilateral sense of propriety that I'm supposed to obey, or I'm a creep/jerk/manchild/etc. There's a two-way street, and she get to make up the traffic rules by her mood, and even you assume this is fine. Women ARE NOT "wonderful". They're not better than men at best and harder to deal with in general. The reserve a special gendered right to be harder to deal with AND demand to be regarded as the better people for it.

As for paying, even the libtardedest youngsters expect guys to pay.
https://theblog.okcupid.com/undress...when-it-comes-to-paying-the-bill-6f8e8b91a7bf



> So, you want to tell the woman you are dating that you believe she is hooked on group think and has no mind of her own? Work on your beliefs. Maybe some are like that. Some. Maybe.
> 
> Pretty much everyone rules over me, by that quote.
> 
> What do you think causes some women to believe that men are less than average? What fallacies do you think are prevalent in some women's beliefs that still make them think they need a man to make more money than them, take care of them, be reasonably attractive to them, be responsible, and keep them safe?


My beliefs are based on the entirety of my life experience and tons of verifiable cultural trash, including guys blatantly kissing up like you are. You've assumed several things about me and women that you wouldn't reverse. You're demonstrating the fucked up culture of gynocentrism yourself, without any sense of imbalance. You wouldn't tell women they should simply like "men" as a class or that dating's necessarily not work for them, but here you are... Funny how that happened.


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

changos said:


> *Past*: you could gain worth and respectability not only by the way you behave, but also based on what you did, your accomplishments. It was about cutting a tree, building a house, taming an animal, keeping an animal alive and well for long (horse, cow etc), building a barn, getting water for our home, fist fighting someone, win or lose you wont respect in many ways. Ok paint a wall, build a fence, milk the cows, study something, get a degree or diploma on something. Well in that intellectual area many things had practical applications, you wouldn't get any respect in town due to your degree on building a bridge if there were no bridges in your area or no need for them. Many things you DO had practical and real life impact on life. You could easily discuss things based on authority arguments because well, you do build bridges and there is one I built myself so don't contradict me, etc.
> 
> In fact in the past no just anybody could discuss or ague in public unless this person had something reasonable to say, or something this person could prove in practical terms. People were ignorant and this demanded proof. (yes you could argue in public if you were stupid in a town full of stupid people, in that context they just would reject reason and welcome magical thinking). Anyway my point is clear.


True. Especially when it came to discourse no one could just challenge the king and it was only the great thinkers and inventors who managed it. And even they were subject to persecution.

I'm thinking of Socrates and the Greeks and how they have stage plays of the epics and stories of their past where people got together to discuss the meaning but only the narrator was allowed to invoke such meaning while the audience just absorbed it and felt it.



> *Present*: any fool can talk about whatever and quote wikipedia, some study someone did (without proof), use authority arguments based on their own degrees (even if they have a master on nuclear plants they somehow find it easy to use that authority comments on day to day discussions about gender), anyone watches national geographic and suddenly they can talk about anything, but mostly the easy on communications make it easy to build wrong arguments based on popular preferences so then the other person wouldn't be facing reason, but the popular rejection. So how can be equal, equally dumb? useless? or how can we easily gain worth and respectability today, where what seems to matter is "whats politicaly incorrect or not". We now see everyone hiding their opinion because ok you don't like gay people? ok that's your preference not a rejection but anyone can bash you in public building arguments that you are against gay people. So now people talk in terms of _constantly-saying sorry_.
> 
> Today many jobs, people, society in general puts a lot of value on degrees you don't have to proove. It's like you have to get a certificate on something to be certified as worth it or respectable, otherwise even if you have the voice of reason many will tell you "don't talk, your opinion is not worth a cent".
> 
> ...


Brilliantly put. I hadn't even though of it in that dimension. Though I touched upon the mass equalization. Because we all have access to the same information a lot of the fantastical magical thinking can be overruled by science.

But how is it then that alternative medicine and the like still exists today? Because in so far as how valuable science has been for the study of life itself there are many things that are still refutable to varying capacities.
Thereby enabling the discourse about it.

But to digress it is not original or independent opinion that is discussed among one another it is regurgitated "truth"(as far as those discussing it know) that is part of common discourse. That is balanced not on the great thinker or philosopher of Socratic mind but on the average intelligence and capacity of those part of the conversation. We all have immediate access to the internet so anyone cal pull out some bloggers notes with no citations and claim "truth". Worse still is if a majority agree with it even if it holds no water because it deems their subjective perspective as having value.

I have had to walk away from many a conversation because the group think was framed by illogical and frankly false argumentation. But I could not hold against the wave after wave of debate from different angles because if you keep boiling down the results of even a scientific study there is still always room for doubt.

I guess the answers are as complex as the questioning. If our worth as individuals is so easily obtained by merely discoursing ideas not of our own but of others then are we not progressing as individuals and merely adding power to thought not of our own? But the discourse that has most benefited humanity has been by juggling different ideas from others and adding subjective elements to it to try and define it in a better manner to adapt it to the majority.

We now have people who can build the best barns imaginable, fighting at the best arena imaginable mixing the arts of all that have come before them. So deriving exceptional worth is not an easy task so we have collectively built our worth upon how we carry out our career. But even that is seeing is limits as education can be broadly achieved and in many arenas it is simply a regurgitation of known truth. So while deriving worth is far easier if we follow the steps that most take. The ability to aggregate and achieve the greatest of worth that individuals desire is far more difficult.


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

Nephandus said:


> BTW (I'm pretty sure the women are trying to save face in these numbers):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Each of us has a different set of experiences. What do you plan on doing the rest of your life, hating women and the system? Every woman is different. Some are assholes, just like men. I was hoping to keep this a positive experience, but I can see there is no way you can handle it. 

You have a choice in what you do. Use that right to your best ability and you won't be so unhappy. No one has issues like that with every woman. Maybe take a look at yourself sometime. Please, stay away from dating women for your own good. You'll find yourself in more trouble.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

pilgrim_12 said:


> Each of us has a different set of experiences. What do you plan on doing the rest of your life, hating women and the system? Every woman is different. Some are assholes, just like men. I was hoping to keep this a positive experience, but I can see there is no way you can handle it.
> 
> You have a choice in what you do. Use that right to your best ability and you won't be so unhappy. No one has issues like that with every woman. Maybe take a look at yourself sometime. Please, stay away from dating women for your own good. You'll find yourself in more trouble.


You're not "positive". Shove the circular cultist shit and your gender myopia. You make claims, you answer for them. You don't get to pretend gospel by calling your shit "positive" (and me as the opposition "negative" thus automatically wrong, natch). You expected me to consider myself so unpleasant to date that I should be fine paying women to show up. You expected me to like women in general, while you clearly expect women to not like men in general, thus why women, according to you, pay for dates by simply enduring the men, even while the men pay the money AND endure the women... Your bias is glowing a bright red and fucking humming like a jet engine eating a bolt, and now you try to pull "positivity" bullshit to handwave your illogic and hypocritical sexism.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Skeletalz said:


> I love this meme :laughing:
> ​


Thanks. Respect women, always.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Toru Okada said:


> Thanks. Respect women, always.


I prefer this

"Press F to respect women" (from KYM).


----------



## septic tank (Jul 21, 2013)

Caveman Dreams said:


> You say its not easy to gain respect nowadays.
> 
> Im going to disagree here, its actually easier to gain respect nowadays, its just not given out for nothing.
> 
> ...


Part of me doesn't want to believe that gaining respect is as simple as what you said because it assumes a lot of people are lazy, but in my experience this has been proven true. 

I'm not the most attractive or the most confident--I actually have pretty terrible social anxiety. But I've landed internships at my school, something I thought I never could do because I thought I'd be overshadowed by the more confident people. And I was offered a second internship there for next summer too! Still kind of boggles my mind.

I think the reason why all of that happened was because I didn't go down the beaten path everyone else blazed. I applied to a job shadowing program most people forgot about. The CFO I met up with was impressed with me because I had an unique motivation for my career choice, backed up by my resume.

So even if you don't have perfect social skills or confidence you can still be successful. You just gotta be smart about it and apply yourself in ways that play to your strengths while working on your weaknesses.

And actually apply yourself, which can be the hardest part of it all.




VapeMaster69 said:


> tbh every1 sucks including myself. I like robots better, I cant wait until AI takes over everything.


/end thread

autobots roll out


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Crimson Ash said:


> I guess the answers are as complex as the questioning. If our worth as individuals is so easily obtained by merely discoursing ideas not of our own but of others then are we not progressing as individuals and merely adding power to thought not of our own?


Enjoyed your whole post. Specially that part.


----------



## clem (Jun 10, 2017)

changos said:


> Enjoyed your whole post. Specially that part.


Me too. Crimson Ash brings up a good point that as education becomes more easily accessible, it is harder for a vast majority to generate high value since information is free and open. I noticed that academic competition and business competition has become more fierce in this millennia due to a variety of different changes in our world. Profits margins fall each quarter for new products. The only way to stay in business is to design and launch new products. Creativity, innovators and celebrities are disproportionately rewarded. The world rewards a small few very highly, and those few are in general wealthy men who own vast empires. I'm not sure if I agree this is the best for us, but it is what it is. So we all get on the treadmill of work and try to advance and build value which leads to wealth, financial or otherwise. 

OP believes that society unfairly values women higher than men in general and that women have an intrinsic social value while men must prove themselves with their value and capability. Why can't society and people in general be more egalitarian, altruistic and create for the joy of sharing rather than for market dominance, intellectual property strife and federal court litigation? This appears the natural result of being mammals and in general diploid organisms. Perhaps we are limited by our biology. Can we strive for something higher and abandon our biological past? This seems like a visionary and idealistic concept. Maybe humans are motivated best by fear, like the fear of being irrelevant and not valued. 

But on the other hand, there is open source software. Programmers build for the sake of improving humanity rather than for personal gain. Also composers and artists do grant public use licenses.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

clem said:


> Me too. Crimson Ash brings up a good point that as education becomes more easily accessible, it is harder for a vast majority to generate high value since information is free and open. I noticed that academic competition and business competition has become more fierce in this millennia due to a variety of different changes in our world. Profits margins fall each quarter for new products. The only way to stay in business is to design and launch new products. Creativity, innovators and celebrities are disproportionately rewarded. The world rewards a small few very highly, and those few are in general wealthy men who own vast empires. I'm not sure if I agree this is the best for us, but it is what it is. So we all get on the treadmill of work and try to advance and build value which leads to wealth, financial or otherwise.
> 
> OP believes that society unfairly values women higher than men in general and that women have an intrinsic social value while men must prove themselves with their value and capability. Why can't society and people in general be more egalitarian, altruistic and create for the joy of sharing rather than for market dominance, intellectual property strife and federal court litigation? This appears the natural result of being mammals and in general diploid organisms. Perhaps we are limited by our biology. Can we strive for something higher and abandon our biological past? This seems like a visionary and idealistic concept. Maybe humans are motivated best by fear, like the fear of being irrelevant and not valued.
> 
> But on the other hand, there is open source software. Programmers build for the sake of improving humanity rather than for personal gain. Also composers and artists do grant public use licenses.


Women can produce offspring, they naturally have higher value than males. Its simple biology.


----------



## Fredward (Sep 21, 2013)

I'm going to draw a diagram:



















The identity crises, the inchoate feeling of being maligned somehow that serves as justification and impetus for the 'kickback' among some people (ie Trump voting people) is cuz of this be sure to cite me properly in your dissertations thank you.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Women can produce offspring, they naturally have higher value than males. Its simple biology.


A biological fact of womens reproduction doesn't necessarily entail that such a capacity be valued universally all the time. In fact, abortion and contraception function in opposition to as much. The idea of reproduction having intense value might function most explicitly in extreme case of skme percieved good of needing more people. Many are instead complaining about population size in many places. Its not that the link can't be made but that you haven't made an explicit one. And I think if there is to be such value it'd be in regards to the broader whole. Because there are certainly times in history in which a policy of emphasizing women having babies comes out. Though it may not be universally shared but not negligble either. I tbink in Australis history it relates to demand for labor in a small former colony trying tk develop itself with ideas of nation building where giving birth is characterized by a sense of fulfilling a patriotic duty.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Wellsy said:


> A biological fact of womens reproduction doesn't necessarily entail that such a capacity be valued universally all the time. In fact, abortion and contraception function in opposition to as much. The idea of reproduction having intense value might function most explicitly in extreme case of skme percieved good of needing more people. Many are instead complaining about population size in many places. Its not that the link can't be made but that you haven't made an explicit one. And I think if there is to be such value it'd be in regards to the broader whole. Because there are certainly times in history in which a policy of emphasizing women having babies comes out. Though it may not be universally shared but not negligble either. I tbink in Australis history it relates to demand for labor in a small former colony trying tk develop itself with ideas of nation building where giving birth is characterized by a sense of fulfilling a patriotic duty.


Im looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Im looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint.


In what sense, because I think it's easy to refer to evolutionary theory but it's harder to refer to specific parts that make it up and the ideas that have been developed through it. 
Because whilst there's a lot to be said about say reproductive value in terms of fitness of offspring, ability to provide and so forth. From this one could even make an effort to explain in ways having children might not be valued in terms of costs or something.
I'm being a bit critical, I just think it's unclear what value women's ability to have reproduction if it's thought of within itself and made some basic points that least point to a devaluing of having children which I then assume would diminish the sense that a woman's worth more if women's capacity for pregnancy is what's valued. 
Because we could in some sense treat the valuing of having children as distinct to the value of women in a general sense in that women can be valued for more than their reproductive capacity. 
It could even be that men and women in some average value reproduction differently, because their positions in regards to reproduction.
Differential fitness costs of reproduction between the sexes


> *Finally, modern fertility declines associated with increased in infant survival and economic development have been difficult to understand from an evolutionary perspective (21). Such declines are most closely associated with improvements in women's reproductive autonomy.* This response may be due to women bearing more economic costs of reproduction than men, but this tradeoff may not be the entire explanation (23). Social scientists have been surprised to find sexual conflicts over reproduction (52), whereas evolutionary biologists expect sexual conflicts in humans and other nonmonogamous species (41, 53, 54). If women have generally incurred greater fitness costs of reproduction, this life history tradeoff could help explain why they generally prefer fewer offspring than their husbands and reduce their fertility when they obtain more reproductive autonomy (23). Conflicts over family size often involve in-laws, and our findings help to explain why the presence of maternal in-laws lower a couple's fertility, whereas paternal in-laws increase it (55, 56): maternal in-laws have more evolutionary interests in the mother's health and reproductive costs than paternal kin. Thus, sexual asymmetries in reproductive costs and investment may contribute to familial and sexual conflicts (20).


So a question of who values what and what way can be considered too, because it's not so universal. 
So following earlier point of women's value in general (which could also be elaborated on with matters of status, not all women are valued any where near the same along same dimensions), and so following point about women's value in general, one could value women's reproductive capacity whilst still devaluing them in other ways. Basically, reproductive capacity if it is to have any value, doesn't necessarily entail that women in some holistic sense are perceived with some greater value than men. And sensitivity to say pregnant women's vulnerability if brought up could be dissected into concern not purely for the mother but for the child, one could hold regard for a woman purely for her capacity to rear a health child.


----------



## pilgrim_12 (Aug 18, 2012)

Fredward said:


> I'm going to draw a diagram:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fixed it for you. Though, you may note, I did not change your drawing to accurately represent how the laws force equality. You've probably been with women who haven't taken you to court for child support, custody, visitation rights, or division of property. Hell, you probably never had anything of worth you had to work for, and had to try and figure out how to divide it while preserving it's integrity. You've probably never worked overtime to pay for Christmas presents for your children, as a non-custodial parent and then had the courts tell you that you need to pay extra child support for the added income of the overtime, causing you to have to work the overtime or fall into arrears and have more of your rights taken from you, by law.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Panorama said:


> "All job levels?" Where are you getting this from?
> 
> Hate to burst your bubble there champ.
> 
> ...


Yes, it's not a perfect increase over time. There are variations. That's why people like you constantly fight for improvements. But over longer periods of time, which is what we are talking about in this thread, things do get better.

50 years ago companies didn't have to care a whole lot about worker's health for example. This is much better now than it was before. Is it perfect? No it's not. But it's better now than it was 50 years ago.

Another thing is the number of hours worked per day. Having the right to vacation (better in europe than in the usa). Over time is paid better now (actually does get paid now.) etc. etc. etc. It's not just the income. It's a lot of things.


People don't know how much worse it was in the past because they haven't experienced it. That doesn't mean they should just be happy now and not complain, but I totally dislike this blindness of the past. Things are getting better all the time, but not without ups and downs. And yes, especially in a country like the usa, you have to fight for your rights a lot more than for example, in europe. Still, I don't believe that americans have it that bad. It could be better of course.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

This really comes across as a "grass is greener" type of situation.
Everybody thinks someone else has it easier, is valued more etc.
Truth is we all have our struggles and we are all judged. By society and individuals. 

The only worth and value anyone has is what you place on yourself.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

And, to add, every thing you do will be both valued and devalued by people depending on their worldview. Your choices are pretty much Schrödinger's cat in the value department.


----------



## VapeMaster69 (Sep 1, 2017)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Im looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint.


evolution is pretty clearly wrong. don't look at things from an evolutionary standpoint, you'll come to a lot of wrong conclusions.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

clem said:


> Me too. Crimson Ash brings up a good point that as education becomes more easily accessible, it is harder for a vast majority to generate high value since information is free and open. I noticed that academic competition and business competition ...


True.

Can't help to bring this to attention. Information is easy to access yes, free stuff, also more degrees, etc etc etc, and as I said before many idiots are know-it-all on discussions (and forums) talking things beyond their true comprehension, people who in my view should stay quiet and listen instead of regurgitating knowledge they access for free on the web. As someone mentioned here doing so doesn't make that knowledge "theirs". One consequence of this is lots of people who are useless having a sense of worth absolutely artificial, so back to the original problem: Men's worth today. Difficult to discuss with so many stupid lazy idiots today. Whaaaat? yes.

I mean this: some men have little value at the eyes of other people (women perhaps-specially) and the worst problem is when they are right, this comes from direct true in my region, increasing trend:



They talk so much about space, aircrafts, motors, science etc.. *but can't *fix the most simple machine at home, blender?
Talk so much about religion, faith, philosophy and other deep stuff but are in fact: assholes.
Expensive watches but always LATE
Talk so much about restaurants and expensive meals, complain about many things but can't cook
Talk like strong men blah blah but don't even have the simples toolbox at home, and can't even use a single tool for fixing or building.
Sounds like Wall-E, lazy dumb people...

I was aware of this to some extent, then a friend of mine got divorced and told me how sad it was being married to a stupid idiot. He said he was smart yes, watched Discovery Channel yes, National Geographic, yes... but there... sitting on the couch, lazy... and couldn't fix anything*. She asked him why watch so smart stuff when he was so fucking stupid*... Sure he answered totally upset: I'm smart and I'm interested in this special about Space, The Atom, etc...

...Why honey... you don't even get up the sofa...

And sure, he felt like a lot of worth, but in reality he was just some guy. They are divorced. And if you really want to see the point (I'm talking in general not addressing someone), then you will see it.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

VapeMaster69 said:


> evolution is pretty clearly wrong. don't look at things from an evolutionary standpoint, you'll come to a lot of wrong conclusions.


I dont really subscribe to religion. Evolutionary Biology makes a lot of obvious sense to me.


----------



## VapeMaster69 (Sep 1, 2017)

Caveman Dreams said:


> I dont really subscribe to religion. Evolutionary Biology makes a lot of obvious sense to me.


I don't subscribe to religion either, i just have a hard time believing anything that i can't see with my own two eyes, and that includes evolution.

Humanity should strive to become more powerful than nature or any God ever could be. I don't respect nature or God. They both suck, so even if evolution is real, believing in it only helps it gain control. Humanity needs to resist both God and nature.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

VapeMaster69 said:


> I don't subscribe to religion either, i just have a hard time believing anything that i can't see with my own two eyes, and that includes evolution.
> 
> Humanity should strive to become more powerful than nature or any God ever could be. I don't respect nature or God. They both suck, so even if evolution is real, believing in it only helps it gain control. Humanity needs to resist both God and nature.


Lets just agree to disagree.


----------



## Fredward (Sep 21, 2013)

pilgrim_12 said:


> Fixed it for you. Though, you may note, I did not change your drawing to accurately represent how the laws force equality. You've probably been with women who haven't taken you to court for child support, custody, visitation rights, or division of property. Hell, you probably never had anything of worth you had to work for, and had to try and figure out how to divide it while preserving it's integrity. You've probably never worked overtime to pay for Christmas presents for your children, as a non-custodial parent and then had the courts tell you that you need to pay extra child support for the added income of the overtime, causing you to have to work the overtime or fall into arrears and have more of your rights taken from you, by law.


Yeah, systemic unfairness is not fun. Point? Cuz mine is that you're actually facing that now instead of getting to make a woman pregnant, getting bored and leaving her with her having no legal recourse wrt support and you having no duty towards your children beyond what you decided you wanted to take. That was then. In redressing a distinct unbalance the group benefiting the most is always gonna lose some of it's privilege, that is always gonna sting because it's the life they've become accustomed to. It's only bad when the redressing leaves them substantially and consistently below the other groups. Which, in this case, it doesn't. This isn't to say that the new system is perfect, it's not and there are cases of blatant unfairness towards straight white men, but that's ultimately in line with the experience of others.

Life is unfair. It used to be consistently more unfair to people who weren't society's default.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Fredward said:


> Yeah, systemic unfairness is not fun. Point? Cuz mine is that you're actually facing that now instead of getting to make a woman pregnant, getting bored and leaving her with her having no legal recourse wrt support and you having no duty towards your children beyond what you decided you wanted to take. That was then. In redressing a distinct unbalance the group benefiting the most is always gonna lose some of it's privilege, that is always gonna sting because it's the life they've become accustomed to. It's only bad when the redressing leaves them substantially and consistently below the other groups. Which, in this case, it doesn't. This isn't to say that the new system is perfect, it's not and there are cases of blatant unfairness towards straight white men, but that's ultimately in line with the experience of others.
> 
> Life is unfair. It used to be consistently more unfair to people who weren't society's default.


Erm no, I would say its only recently that single mothers and deadbeat fathers have been on the rise. And why shouldnt they, responsibility is a thing of the past.

"Who's your daddy" is no longer a joke, its a serious question.


----------



## Fredward (Sep 21, 2013)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Erm no, I would say its only recently that single mothers and deadbeat fathers have been on the rise. And why shouldnt they, responsibility is a thing of the past.
> 
> "Who's your daddy" is no longer a joke, its a serious question.


Sure, guy.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Fredward said:


> Sure, guy.


Even when I was at school, at least in my year there were not that many Bastards.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Caveman Dreams said:


> Women can produce offspring, they naturally have higher value than males. Its simple biology.


Yes and no. I've seen how many people try to use that argument in their favor (and even against themselves), but there is a yes and a no. Watched a nice documentary about endurance sports (been into sports all my life) and they explained women are more equipped for that because basically, they are designed to sustain life for two, not just one. So they explained their supposed endurance, resistance to dehydration, pain tolerance etc (all in regards to sports) anyway they don't donimate as much areas in sports as those ideas might suggest. Granted, they are designed to sustain two.

Anyway the way I see it this is like the egg and the chicken discussion, a woman can't do anything without a man in terms of reproduction, men can procreate with many women (one single man) etc. I just don't see the point of discussing that angle when *two are needed to tango*.



Caveman Dreams said:


> Im looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint.


I don't see it, it would be again a yes and no. I came across many (historical) readings explaining how many cultures put a lot of value on women due to carrying a baby, fertility, etc. But truth is, in the same context (same cultures) most of them treated their women like shit, but yes a few cultures treated them well (tribes), because the world is big and not everyone treats their women the same exactly.

Today? well there is a serious evolutionary comparison between women/fertility/procreation and corn/reproduction. Over the years both are failing to do it by themselves. The corn was "domesticated" and after many years of human interaction it lost it's ability for independent reproduction, this is compared to women being generagion by generation having more issues giving birth compared to the past (compared to tribes or cultures where they don't go to hospitals).

The ability to recover from pregnancy is also... not the same. I said before women are loosing their values and I stay on it (and men too) because more and more people are having difficults having babies. As I said before I worked on a big media company for many years and interacted with the same people for years. During those years I had them sharing their stories on how difficult it was to many to have children, why? *the most dominante case: terrible nutrition*. We had doctors explaining how constant DIETS are affecting women, have you hear "women + diet?" everywhere. And most of the times they are not ready in terms of nutrition. My sister was one of those, in fact her husband was in the shit for those standards too.

We often think humanity has "evolved" but there are setbacks and difficulties we don't want to see.


----------



## Sylarz (Sep 4, 2014)

Do you really think men aren't valued for their sex appeal?

This is Nick Bateman










If you read his instagram, the women respond no differently than like a hoard of drooling men commenting on a hot girl's photo.

In reality, most women are not even valued for their sex appeal, because they don't have any. Most women get a relatively short time span in their lives between 16 and 32 when they are particularly valued for sex appeal, and even then, probably not the majority. I never noticed in the past how few women are actually attractive. I had this view in my mind that women were hot, because I only ever noticed the hot ones. Start to look around. Most _people _are unattractive with no sex appeal whatsoever, not just women, men too.

I'd imagine there are more sexually attractive women than sexually attractive men, because it's harder to be a sexually attractive man, so maybe you think men aren't valued for sex appeal because. It's hard to be 'accidentally hot' as a man. Many women are accidentally hot. They are naturally slim with a nice body frame and face, and that's it. You'd be surprised how many hot girls are actually unfit.

What is a man's worth today? Yes, it's a strange world. Women have their own money now. And there's a social safety net to act as a surrogate man. They don't need us, so most men go completely passed by, while the 5% chads are drowning in women. Evolve or suffer. There's a reason why the gym industry is booming in Australia. There's a reason why steroid use is becoming so common. In the past men worked hard in the office. Most men haven't gotten the memo. Now you must work hard in the gym.

But make no mistake, most women still value a man in their lives. Your fundamental value is your masculine energy. You'd be surprised at how women talk about men. I sometimes am. Many of them really do like men for being men. It's kind of mind blowing. It's just not that common to get them to talk about it. But go read some girly forums or get some female friends and eavesdrop. Mind blowing stuff. Some of them even act like the man is the prize and get all nervous about it. What a world. Although, it's probably over chad. But she can't get the chad to settle down. That's the female conundrum. Yeah she can sleep with the chad, but the chad is never going to settle down for her. She has to compete with all the other women, and why would he settle for _you_ just because he'd sleep with you? So at some stage, they have to move down the ladder if they want commitment. 

But historically it's always been that way. It's been shown that historically, only a top percentage of men even were able to breed. But almost every woman would. Women are the bottleneck. Men have always been expendable and supposed to compete. Fair? Nope. But nature isn't. Life isn't. We were born men. We have to play that hand.

In terms of VALUE TO SOCIETY, well there's no such thing. Same as women. Your value is your contribution economically and socially.


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

changos said:


> True.
> 
> Can't help to bring this to attention. Information is easy to access yes, free stuff, also more degrees, etc etc etc, and as I said before many idiots are know-it-all on discussions (and forums) talking things beyond their true comprehension, people who in my view should stay quiet and listen instead of regurgitating knowledge they access for free on the web. As someone mentioned here doing so doesn't make that knowledge "theirs". One consequence of this is lots of people who are useless having a sense of worth absolutely artificial, so back to the original problem: Men's worth today. Difficult to discuss with so many stupid lazy idiots today. Whaaaat? yes.


Exactly this. As I brought up earlier critical thinking is in such short supply these days because most people let the media and the internet do the thinking for them.

This is not just exclusive to men, I've seen plenty of women of all ages exhibit the same type of behavior.

But as to your point back in the past the cultural basis and framework that humanity operated on across the globe was relying on men to perform this function.

From the shamans and wise men of the tribe to the philosophers and thinkers that came after them.

So right now everyone's a psychologist and a philosopher and a thinker because they read the latest puff piece from some nonsense website that doesn't cite many facts.

So the perception has shifted to include everyone on the same plane but precious little actual fact behind that notion. So men have falsely evaluated themselves onto the same level when in reality only a few can actually accomplish such levels of thinking.

Just attempt to converse with someone who has read an article that is false in many ways, they will get emotional and challenge you because they believe what they read is truth and hold unreasonably high opinions about their perceptions.

Even if you introduce information that disproves their point they still forcefully cling to the idea they formed based on false information because they perceive themselves to be far more intellectually capable because they are fed so much information.

But anyone can read information, interpreting it accurately and fairly is another game entirely.



> I mean this: some men have little value at the eyes of other people (women perhaps-specially) and the worst problem is when they are right, this comes from direct true in my region, increasing trend:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True. Some men hold such value over themselves that doesn't actually exist.

Your idea though is based upon the older cultural framework based on gender roles of having men be the one who fixes things and knows how to accomplish tasks that were previously relegated to only one gender.

We have made quite a bit of progress in adjusting for this change with having a more balanced approach to this.

But there are two challenges here. The one you brought up which is men who don't have the tool set and knowledge base to be representative of a more rounded value. So therefore their value has diminished in that direction.

But if men are not doing these things then who it? If you are earning a lot of money then you can relegate these things to other people but that is not the case for a lot of people. So women have to differentiate themselves then to accomplish these tasks?

Right now we exist in a place where since we have thrown the older more archaic frameworks out the window it is up to the individual to develop themselves. But because individual differentiation takes a lot more motivation and goes in all sorts of directions we have a high variance of characters and I fear the value of men has been devolved so much that physical characteristics are now at the forefront of masculine value.

And why not? If I were a woman and were looking for someone to take care of offspring if he has nothing else to offer at the very least he is physically capable enough to defend himself and his family.

There are also two broad factors in play right now. The first is birth control having a recorded effect on women's attraction to men and social and economic stability showing women being more attracted to effeminate men.

The knock on effects of all this has yet to be determined right now though I fear they have begun to start playing out.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Crimson Ash said:


> Exactly this. As I brought up earlier critical thinking is in such short supply these days because most people let the media and the internet do the thinking for them.
> 
> This is not just exclusive to men, I've seen plenty of women of all ages exhibit the same type of behavior.
> 
> ...


So should we take the internet away from humans? Sounds like it, if you think that humans today are being quite pathetic.


----------



## Caveman Dreams (Nov 3, 2015)

Riven said:


> So should we take the internet away from humans? Sounds like it, if you think that humans today are being quite pathetic.


Why take it away. Just do what YOU want to do.


----------



## Crimson Ash (May 16, 2012)

Riven said:


> So should we take the internet away from humans? Sounds like it, if you think that humans today are being quite pathetic.


That is such a gross oversimplification and generalization of what I said.

I also never said anyone was pathetic just that normal discourse has taken on a more complex shape thanks to the rapid transfer and sharing of information.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

Sylarz said:


> Do you really think men aren't valued for their sex appeal?


A lot of places I go to online seem like this is so. I used to go on Tumblr, but I envied the emo guys on there (not regarded as "sexy" by most people, but I highly regard it because it makes guys look more androgynous or feminine).

Now, I'm often on here and on Discord, the latter, for which outside of porn servers, there seemed (seemed, because 9/10 times even the women post pics of other attractive women online, even nude if rules allow it in some non-pornography related servers) to be way more gay or bi women even in servers that aren't "safe spaces" for them. 


> In reality, most women are not even valued for their sex appeal, because they don't have any. Most women get a relatively short time span in their lives between 16 and 32 when they are particularly valued for sex appeal, and even then, probably not the majority. I never noticed in the past how few women are actually attractive. I had this view in my mind that women were hot, because I only ever noticed the hot ones. Start to look around. Most _people _are unattractive with no sex appeal whatsoever, not just women, men too.


That's a bit sad to hear, I have to say. 


> I'd imagine there are more sexually attractive women than sexually attractive men, because it's harder to be a sexually attractive man, so maybe you think men aren't valued for sex appeal because. It's hard to be 'accidentally hot' as a man. Many women are accidentally hot. They are naturally slim with a nice body frame and face, and that's it. You'd be surprised how many hot girls are actually unfit.


Because men don't really need to be fit to gain appeal (including non-sexual), and if they are, it's usually because they enjoy physical activity, or are in this case, modelling. I blame our larger diets from our higher metabolisms compared with women and our fat distribution, combined with modern society's propensity for low physical activity. 



> But make no mistake, most women still value a man in their lives. Your fundamental value is your masculine energy. You'd be surprised at how women talk about men. I sometimes am. Many of them really do like men for being men. It's kind of mind blowing. It's just not that common to get them to talk about it. But go read some girly forums or get some female friends and eavesdrop. Mind blowing stuff. Some of them even act like the man is the prize and get all nervous about it. What a world. Although, it's probably over chad. But she can't get the chad to settle down. That's the female conundrum. Yeah she can sleep with the chad, but the chad is never going to settle down for her. She has to compete with all the other women, and why would he settle for _you_ just because he'd sleep with you? So at some stage, they have to move down the ladder if they want commitment.


I have witnessed this very few times, and I tend to think that women who do this are of the mainstream sort or the ugly nerdy type. If the woman is attractive, but doesn't listen to mainstream music or isn't very much into geeky pop culture stuff, she's often awfully frigid in my experience. 


> But historically it's always been that way. It's been shown that historically, only a top percentage of men even were able to breed. But almost every woman would. Women are the bottleneck. Men have always been expendable and supposed to compete. Fair? Nope. But nature isn't. Life isn't. We were born men. We have to play that hand.


Well I don't like the cards I've been played, but I don't think both sides look good. Be the ugly man who can't attract women 95% of the time, or be a woman whose many potential partners are unattractive. 


> In terms of VALUE TO SOCIETY, well there's no such thing. Same as women. Your value is your contribution economically and socially.


Sadly more like economically than socially these days. My problem with this is not related to the thread topic (since both men and women these days are contributing to the economy), though, which I can elaborate on if you want.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Crimson Ash said:


> So right now everyone's a psychologist and a philosopher and a thinker because they read the latest puff piece from some nonsense website that doesn't cite many facts.
> 
> And why not? If I were a woman and were looking for someone to take care of offspring if he has nothing else to offer at the very least he is physically capable enough to defend himself and his family.


(Quoting just bits for space). Tons of books about "known trends" about women talking but doing very little, in the sense of talking out loud about problems they don't want to fix. There are tons of books about this and the "brain" differences between men and women. For what? only to have men doing the same today? blah blah blah and most of what they talk stays as words, very little action.

Money, yes, many people relegating duties, jobs, things to do and fix. I agree on social-evolution, technology etc, but still we should be able to change a flat tire on our own car, it's about owning our stuff. As much as society changes we still live in houses so why not acting like that house is ours? otherwise there is a direct connection between this and just becoming trolls. 

The problem with all of that is the online life, anyone feels smart, and we live to far to punch them in the fucking face. Defend their family? true, but talks with "aggressive" men are kinda sad considering the last time they punched someone's face, it's at many levels pure blah blah blah.



Riven said:


> So should we take the internet away from humans? Sounds like it, if you think that humans today are being quite pathetic.


classic shitty comment, worthless and following your own trend of comments, we should erase you instead of the internet: nobody would miss you anyway. (and there you go again posting the same shit in 3, 2, 1).


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

changos said:


> classic shitty comment, worthless and following your own trend of comments, we should erase you instead of the internet: nobody would miss you anyway. (and there you go again posting the same shit in 3, 2, 1).


Do it. I bet no one will.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

@Riven

Not going to quote the entire post but I believe that you meant to say that you do not like the cards you've been *dealt.* The cards you *play* are your *choice* or is that a bit on the nose?

Secondly you are exasperating. You're a young, healthy, male, -as far as I know not destitute- with a roof over your head, food on the table, an education living in a 1st world country.Stop acting like you have been so down-trodden. You are still young and have every oppertunity to do what you want to do.


----------



## FeministFlapper (Aug 12, 2017)

Judging by everything I've seen on this thread, it seems like you might be projecting your own experiences onto how the entire West views men. From what you said, your preference to live "by the bare minimum", indicates that the problem may just be that you need to push yourself. Overall, frankly, your predicament doesn't seem unfair to me at all. What _would_ be unfair would be if you were praised for the bare minimum, just because of your gender.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I think it's the eternal state of male humanity that the bad eggs ruin it for everyone. So "value" then comes from maintaining as much distance as possible from the image of the bad eggs. These days, that seems to come in the form of "I'm a good guy feminist with an open mind and comfortable enough with my sexuality to not be a homophobe" virtue signalling, but maybe that's just where I live...

Then again, it's the eternal state of humanity for a few shitty people to ruin it for everyone else. So might not be a man thing at all.

The problem with the virtue signalling though, is value in anything ultimately comes from higher demand than supply (or optimal supply for demand, but never higher supply). So if everyone starts virtue signalling that loses value as well. And I think that's what is happening. It doesn't stand out as a distinct positive trait anymore. And it's not the 1950s so there's no reason for men to be given brownie points for simply being not sexist or without history of sex crimes.

Also related to the supply thing is the fact that men have lower sexual "market value" for the same reason (higher demand/lower supply and vice versa for women). Though I would argue you can counter that one on an individual level.

I don't think men are seen as lacking sex appeal though, not for anyone who's attracted to men... some women don't even understand why you'd pay more attention to other womens' sex appeal (aside from self-comparison/aspiration purposes) unless you are not actually hetero. I don't really understand it myself why some women are easily all "I'm totally straight but she's hot!" and others don't think that way at all, because they genuinely think men have more sex appeal. The latter makes more intuitive sense to me, i.e., whoever you are attracted to has more sex appeal. 

If I ever recognize a man as having sex appeal, it basically means I would not mind being/looking like that, and for whatever reason imagine that guy probably attracts a lot of women. Sort of an ideal version for myself. However I don't get the thing some women do going around saying they are straight but so-and-so other woman is super hot. lol.

Anyway to stay on track. Sex appeal is only one type of value. Aside from that, there are lots of ways to decide how you want to be valued and work towards that.


----------



## entheos (Aug 18, 2013)

I'm glad that I read most of the thread (not everything) and people restored my normal breathing rythm that was taken away upon reading the OP. I'd be horrified if the OP text was something that most men think. 

Like other people already said, a few assholes from both sides can create illusions of things that don't actually exist.

Also can I just say that the person who said men are biologically more expendable... OUCH. That literally hurt -I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying OUCH. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, I don't really care because you (you as in general men, not you-you) are not expendable to me under any circumstances. Here goes mushy feely entheos, but it's what it is. 

And how are men not valued when everything we have was built by men? Let me check my street... My house built by a bunch of men, the architect was a man, most of the shops where I get my stuff for survival are owned by men who provide me with an excellent service, the kindergarten on the corner half the staff is guys, when my washing machine breaks guess who I call... a man. My mother's therapist is a man. My gyn who keeps me healthy and breast cancer-free is a man. The list of their contribution to the world if you only look at your own street is endless. Then look beyond your street, and they're building the rest of the world. Sometimes they're destroying sure, look at ISIS. But how can this be a Black & White topic, angelic vs evil? It isn't.


----------



## Riven (Jan 17, 2015)

entheos said:


> I'm glad that I read most of the thread (not everything) and people restored my normal breathing rythm that was taken away upon reading the OP. I'd be horrified if the OP text was something that most men think.
> 
> Like other people already said, a few assholes from both sides can create illusions of things that don't actually exist.
> 
> Also can I just say that the person who said men are biologically more expendable... OUCH. That literally hurt -I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying OUCH. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, I don't really care because you (you as in general men, not you-you) are not expendable to me under any circumstances. Here goes mushy feely entheos, but it's what it is.


There was a person somewhere around here that said that society's worth was defined by its women - where if they were all promiscuous and stuff, then society needs to change.



> And how are men not valued when everything we have was built by men? Let me check my street... My house built by a bunch of men, the architect was a man, most of the shops where I get my stuff for survival are owned by men who provide me with an excellent service, the kindergarten on the corner half the staff is guys, when my washing machine breaks guess who I call... a man. My mother's therapist is a man. My gyn who keeps me healthy and breast cancer-free is a man. The list of their contribution to the world if you only look at your own street is endless. Then look beyond your street, and they're building the rest of the world. Sometimes they're destroying sure, look at ISIS. But how can this be a Black & White topic, angelic vs evil? It isn't.


I think it's only fair that women lead the world now. We've had centuries of men leading it . Hell, sometimes I even think there's a slightly pro-male bias in the languages we speak (except for the word "widower", for instance). Granted, in my country (UK), the women that have led this country were all conservative and/or power-hungry.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Men are expendable. (And I don't mean this in a feminist manner at all). Men are expendable in that it takes fewer men to propagate the species than it does women - this is why we have always had more men in positions and committing to work that makes our lives more at risk. We do this as a natural biological calling. I don't mind it. My instinct is to protect my woman in my life. I have had that experience where I put myself between a mugger with a gun and my wife and dared the guy to shoot. I saw this with my dad who put himself between a mugger and his family and dared him to shoot. 

It's reckless behaviour, but it's unavoidable for the majority of men. We're biologically driven to do this. Meanwhile with women, you'll see them take such reckless risks with regards to the protection of their children more so than the protection of their husbands/spouses. 

I agree with this natural order because it's organic. It's not forced. Men seeing themselves as expendable for the benefit of society is natural to us and I don't personally have a problem with this. 

I also don't have a problem with those men who don't see themselves as expendable either btw. Of course we need those who fight and die to protect society, but we also need those who stay behind and continue to keep society functional while others of us fight and die for it. This is not going to change. 

I believe that a man's worth is innate, but his value to society comes from his compassion, ability to understand when he needs to sacrifice himself for it and continue to work to improve/build it. It's fine if women want to come and share this burden, but at the same time, it's a burden to be borne by someone and men are more likely to bear it at this point in time. 

Living in the deep south and having experienced 3 hurricanes now that caused massive damage, I have a very grounded experience in seeing how the heroes of society come together to protect the weak. 

It gives me a wonderful feeling to live in societies like these where great people still exist who are willing to go to extreme trouble and self-sacrifice to make sure the weak are taken care of. While the media and randos on the internet can look down upon this and spin it to some sort of weird ideal of how we're barbaric and war mongerers - ultimately those that look down upon core male traits of compassion and self-sacrifice are benefiting the most from it. 

It pains me when I read stories of how a coal-miner's daughter for example tweets on the internet "ALL MEN ARE DOGS". because some crazy professor taught her that it's cool. It bothers me that women that are safe and protected from terrorists refuse to acknowledge that it's because there are men out there on the front lines fighting on their behalf and its necessary to do so. Having come from a terrorist-riddled country myself, I see the benefit in our foreign wars ... Those sitting at home in the comfort of their living rooms and turning into "keyboard warriors" are too far removed from this sacrifice to understand its far reaching consequences on their own lives. 

These kind of women (and men who spout the same bullshit now) are to me just misguided and delusional to an extent.

As far as sexual attraction is concerned, more women are more attracted to the men who are compassionate, kind, protective, strong-willed, determined and hard working. Yes, these are all positive male traits and there are a lot of men who have these traits in droves. If you don't have a lot of those traits, you will have a hard time competing with those men who do. It's just how it is.



ponpiri said:


> But these are the personality traits I tend to go for:
> 
> 
> intelligent
> ...


This list is very interesting because it actually contains a lot of "traditional" masculine traits found especially amongst more "typical" men like myself. 6 of 8 to be exact - Sensitivity and Introspection comes with age.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

entheos said:


> I'm glad that I read most of the thread (not everything) and people restored my normal breathing rythm that was taken away upon reading the OP. I'd be horrified if the OP text was something that most men think.
> 
> Like other people already said, a few assholes from both sides can create illusions of things that don't actually exist.
> 
> ...


If you've ever seen the Red Pill documentary, they do make the point that men have made all these contributions, but also that they aren't necessarily valued for it. The fact that "men built everything" is generally a feminist criticism of patriarchy.


----------



## clem (Jun 10, 2017)

@Riven on an emotional level, I appreciate your candor. My know my irl INFP guy friends suffer from dark moods occasionally maybe due to rejection and social isolation. When I ask them about it they say they would rather keep such distasteful thoughts to themselves. Now I feel like I understand them better. A glimpse of the dark corners of the mind that many hide. So it must be bothering you alot that you feel like you want to vent. 

You should try to look at things more unemotionally because focusing on your feelings too much will keep you from your success. Gender is supposed to promote genetic variation, so in societal competition there will always be winners and losers. That’s just the fundamental nature of being a diploid organism, so there’s no reason to feel bad about being a man. It helps to try to focus on what you can do instead of what you cannot. I know this sounds wrong, to go for Te over Fi when you feel down, but maybe try it once in awhile. You want to improve, not stagnate right? Or you can use you Ne to think of all the different ways you can make you life better.


----------



## entheos (Aug 18, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> If you've ever seen the Red Pill documentary, they do make the point that men have made all these contributions, but also that they aren't necessarily valued for it. The fact that "men built everything" is generally a feminist criticism of patriarchy.


They aren't valued for it? O_O Mmhhh... 

Well I haven't watched that documentary, and I rarely watch the news so... I just refer to personal experiences. I'm a libertarian-ish non-feminist, daughter of a hardcore feminist anarchist mother, and my sister is an SJW, however we have civil discussions about the world and although we disagree on many things, we certainly believe that men are the bomb and that having a vagina as president doesn't mean shit just cause it's a vagina. I don't know man... I find the world so strange.

Look at my facts in my post: None LOL


----------

