Originally posted by Oliver North
you were the one who claimed the depiction of white/male/middle class in pop culture was reason to believe men were the most hard done by demographic, were you not?your answer should therefore be self evident, re: you don't know what you are talking about.
you also called me an idiot, yet i'm the one who was warned. Sooooooo Digi, what is really going on?
Originally posted by Raisen
you also called me an idiot, yet i'm the one who was warned. Sooooooo Digi, what is really going on?
Digi isn't a mod of this forum and I have a long history of not being a troll, whereas you say things like "peter griffin means men are oppressed, rargh"
the fact you don't see the difference is the reason you were warned
Originally posted by Oliver North
Digi isn't a mod of this forum and I have a long history of not being a troll, whereas you say things like "peter griffin means men are oppressed, rargh"the fact you don't see the difference is the reason you were warned
Cool. So you and your friends have free reign to bash anybody outside of your little bubble, call them idiots, when they have done nothing but express an opinion.
I understand now.
Originally posted by Raisen
Cool. So you and your friends have free reign to bash anybody outside of your little bubble, call them idiots, when they have done nothing but express an opinion.I understand now.
if that is how you want to interpret what I've said, sure
I don't think I'd describe my relationship with Ush or Peach as friendly
Finally, someone responded with serious business.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Cons:- Men will be/already are disadvantaged in a relationship with a female in this kind of culture.
Learn2socialize and manipulate, then.
I will frequently refer to this sentence as "-1" throughout the rest of the post.
"If a male cannot adapt and turn this to his advantage, he will be at a sexual disadvantage and the other more adaptable males will get more opportunities to mate."
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
- Men will/already face significant competition for career opportunities and growth in this kind of culture.
See -1.
From my anecdotal experience, women who are attractive, well-spoken, and dress well, have a massive advantage over her majority male colleagues in the corporate world. Only male fools (or what the internet likes to call "betas"😉 think women are the only ones that can manipulate and flaunt their junk to their advantage in the work place.
Having a female majority management hierarchy is already an advantage to the male, in a corporate setting, that is aggressive, in shape, dresses well, and is well spoken. In an office full of women, it is to a male's advantage if he can display those traits while having -1.
Men are proven to be more aggressive and competitive than women. If they start to feel the squeeze from a loss of males in the work environment, their aggression and competitiveness will give them a literal biological advantage over their female counterparts. So even if the females rule the workplace...it would be short-lived, imo. Men would have to compete much more vigorously for their jobs. I just don't see men being lazy about things for the next two decades like the charts show. Once they feel a bit of a squeeze, they'll step up. Women are just taking advantage of what was not available to their mothers, grandmothers, or great grandmothers for thousands of years (for the most part).
Here's another reference: -2 "There is just not enough time for our genes to evolve to make us a different type of "species". Regardless of what the society does, we're just about the same animals we were 20 thousand years ago."
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
- Several laws will be/already are favorable to women; this is bad news for men in this kind of culture. As more and more women reach positions of power, expect more laws to be made in their favor.
One of my favorite things is "working the system" to your advantage. If that means the laws, there will be ways to work the system to the male advantage. Additionally, males still rule the political system. I do not fear this anti-male legislation you speak of.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
- The importance of men will diminish in the long-run in this kind of culture. Women would not even need men to procreate; sperm-banks will do the job for them.
Unless you're going to carry this to the next technological step by claiming that indistinguishable "sexadolls" will be created, women and men cannot really ignore their biological programming (they will seek each other out for some bare-back stank). The only women that do as you are stating are male-hating lesbians. Those are rare, even among lesbians. 😐
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
- Men (majority) will suffer from GID because they will be tutored to be soft and adorable which will conflict against their genetic make-up (the stronger sex no longer being conditioned like it).
I reject that idea and submit the -2.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
- Population growth can slow-down significantly; possibly halt.
It was projected to happen, anyway.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Pros:- Easy sex (in case of a sexually liberal society)
- Women being capable of sustaining households on their own. Though many women expect their men to work and shun/dislike if they don't.
Both pros are awesome.
I don't like lazy and underachieving men, as well. They always strike me as bums or leeches. So why would I be upset if a woman thought the same?
Originally posted by Oliver North
As an anecdote, I've always been way more attracted to independent women and such. I remember an ex of mine and a good friend talking one day, and he was adamant about how it was his responsibility to take care of and provide for his woman and how that was very important to him. Me and my ex both looked at that attitude as somewhat demeaning to his gf, but to his own psychology, not having that power would be a loss of his own masculinity.Regardless of whether equality is the optimal outcome, we have to sort of recognize that equality is opposed to a lot of what men expect of themselves in society, and totally in a non malevolent way. Like, my friend isn't a misogynist per se, it was a psychological expectation he had developed for himself sort of independent of what he thought of women.
There's also the issue that social theorists have spent a long time taking apart social structures while not doing anything to rebuild them. Everyone is telling you who you shouldn't be. When that happens you risk invalidating how people actually feel. The notion that "it is wrong to act the way society says you should" isn't internally consistent. Eventually you'll just have a new society.
At best maybe we can promote awareness of many options and somewhat free people from social influence. But if there is some special unique self buried under social control (which is silly, IMO) then why should it be homogeneous? Freedom from the influences of society some people will make the same decisions they would have made when they were influenced by it. I don't think its right to be uncomfortable with your friend wanting to be able to completely take care of his girlfriend. Maybe he was told to feel that way. Maybe he just does. I doubt there's a way to separate the two possibilities.
The BDSM community, for instance, is in a real bind (ha!) because of this. Most of its members are very liberal sexually and politically but they come into serious conflict with liberals on gender politics. If dominant/submissive is part of one's gender identity then it is something that society shouldn't, from a liberal point of view, be telling them to suppress. At the same time, though, people are very uncomfortable with the idea of submissive women (try to name one example of a woman involved in BDSM on TV/Movies who isn't a dominatrix, The Secretary doesn't count, neither does porn) and, less so, dominant men.
I think its worth emphasizing the myriad things society controls about us that we don't care about. http://www.zompist.com/amercult.html (Bacon is supposed to be crisp, damnit! No one eats horses! Comicbooks are in color!)
Does your friend understand he has other options? Does his girlfriend/wife? If they do I find it hard to argue that we should do anything more. We ought to ensure that they have that understanding on a cultural level as much as on an intellectual level (so go get films to pass the Bechdel test) but I'm not sure it even makes sense to expect more.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Like, I just told you about my grandfather, right? I had a conversation with my grandmother last night that got really emotional for both of us, and I couldn't help but feel that, as a man, I should be more "in control" of my emotions. The logical part of my mind knows that is stupid, but there is that social expectation that is hard to shake.
This is getting off topic but, 3 years later, I still lose composure if something reminds me of my grandfather. I miss the shit out of that dude.
Originally posted by Oliver North
just to throw it out there DDM, and to highlight my own hypocrisy more, I didn't reply to you earlier because your points were too rational and I didn't feel like just agreeing with someone whose view is only slightly different than mine
I don't view the aggressive, educated, and successful female as a threat. I view them as attractive. I don't want to pair off with an idiot, I want to pair off with an equal. Crazy thought...I know...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The BDSM community, for instance, is in a real bind (ha!) because of this.
I lol'd...you pervert. 313
I kinda want to jump into the whole independent women thing, but I fear I would spiral into unproductive self-analysis. I don't have an easy answer, so I will stay silent.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm a victim of my own cynicism 🙁I'd love to actually have a serious conversation about gender issues that men face, but it seems people want to moan about being lampooned in cartoons more than they actually want to talk about the issues that men face in society.
Like, the whole "alpha male" thing is actually terrible for male psychology. Especially in terms of gender expectations.
I'm glad you got the joke though. It seems like nonsense to me that "men's rights" people would be so focused on trivial or superficial things... what is this, 8-9 pages in and none of them are mentioning that men kill themselves at rates that should astonish anyone, even those who pay attention to such things.
Its like I said before, in my own egotistical way, I can make the argument better than these idiots, and I don't even agree with them (also, male suicide rates are not supportive of patriarchy).
Staying non-cynical is hard. I dip in and out of being ultra-snarky and relatively level-headed on KMC, depending on my mood. I don't encounter such things too often irl, so for the most part I can make jokes amongst friends that I know will go over well, and not have to actually invest in most topics.
Originally posted by Raisen
you also called me an idiot, yet i'm the one who was warned. Sooooooo Digi, what is really going on?
Unless Ush PM'd you, you didn't actually get a warning. You got an in-thread pre-warning that won't show up on your record. And just don't be a jerk-hole and you're fine. We're in one of the most accepting eras of KMC ever. If you ever get an actual warning/ban, it would have come WAY sooner at any other point in the forum's history. Anyway, blunt honesty isn't a warnable offense unless it devolves into mindless bashing.
Personally, I think if everyone kept their big-boy pants on while debating on the internet, 90% of feuds would go away. Just, like I said, don't be a dillhole, don't let the inevitable antagonism of debate escalate to unmanageable levels, and you'll be fine.
Now, prove us wrong and re-engage the points others have made. You seem much more interested in perpetuating the debate than bringing it to an understanding or resolution.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Ush and Peach have no friends.Only prey. sneer
This is truth. Ush still scares me, even when I was a fellow global. Peach, less so, but we also have more of a history on KMC.
Originally posted by NemeBro
What about lazy or underachieving women?
Did you...read...any other posts of mine after that?
I'm not going to quote my own posts that had your answer.
Originally posted by NemeBro
And what a weird statement, coming from the guy who told me to squeeze money from my father by living with him in a bill-less as long as I could. ****ing hypocrite. estahuh
That's a tad different: the stipulation was going to school and/or earning money while living with your parents so you could come out of your parents' nest a bit further ahead in the game than your peers.
Sitting around all day doing nothing is dumb and lazy. Making productful use of your parents' financial stability is, however, not dumb or lazy.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I would like to bring up my point about jobs not being a zero sum game. More women working is good for the economy as they create more value and there can be more consumption.
Originally posted by Bardock42
A woman having a job does not necessarily steal a job from another person, rather she may create her own job (and many others) indirectly.
Do organizations create special jobs for women? A few possibly but majority doesn't.
Originally posted by Bardock42
This is very similar to anti-immigration arguments, and it's just as wrong really.
