It's shit like this that makes my life worse as a Eurasian because even if you look amazing you're still a subhuman because Asian women happily marry guys who look like they've been in industrial accidents over an Asian guy. It makes Asian looking males look like the worst fucking losers on earth. The guy is absolutely offensive to look at. Like his face literally makes my stomach churl because he's so ugly. I'd even be mad if he had a white girlfriend People feel they have the liberty to say of course your dad is white. Because white guys see shit like this where some fucking quasimodo looking freak can get Asian girls and they use it as ammo as to how shittyy asian guys are...
I vaguely remember there being some drama associated with the good men project and the proto Male Feminist hugo schwyzer years ago but I'm too drunk and old to recall what it was. I feel like /u/snallygaster would though
No, he is their prof. He is not their boss or parole officer. He literally has no power over them. All he can do is give them a bad mark - which is subject to appeal.
This thread is precisely why Reddit fucking sucks so god damn fucking much when it comes to exactly what they’re preaching, which is nuance. It’s fucking infuriating hat the position of this thread is “she’s right but because of a lack of nuance she’s gonna get discredited”. Fuck that. Fuck you. You don’t fucking get it. It’s like saying “all lives matter”. Yeah. You’re technically right. But YOURE the one saying fuck you to nuance when THIS is the argument you’re upvoting and perpetrating. No shit women should be proactive. No shit there are things they can do. But Fuck this goddamn normalizing of abusive men in power. This “well there’s always gonna be creeps so you gotta” FUCKING WHY?!?! WHY DOES THERE ALWAYS GONNA BE CREEPS?!?!
And to be blunt. It’s exactly what you said. It’s men. It’s fucking young men on Reddit. Having been taught that the world is their oyster but they aren’t President so they’re oppressed. Believing that liking Star Wars and nerdy things is the same backlash as being black w/r/t ostracization.
I was waiting. I knew it was starting with the countless “well Corey Feldman, well Terry Crewes” comments whenever anyone talks about the women suffering. Let’s be real. It was only a matter of time before Reddit made this a “well let’s think about how women are ALSO responsible and to blame for this shit”. Before it became a “well we gotta frame this in a way where we don’t have to actively accept that there are fundamental things men and men in power gotta change and need to try to make a better effort to call out in my fellow man poor behavior to fundamentally pivot from the perverse shithole we’re in”.
Reddit: every thread screams about logic being king, and it’s never used in a way that seems to benefit women hmmmmmmmmmmmm weeeeeiiiiiirrrrrd
This thread makes me want to puke and makes me completely and utterly pessimistic with regard to thinking ANYTHING is going to actually change in our culture.
Also why the FUCK are we listening to Pam Anderson talk about anything when there’s literal sociological studies that show why victims of abuse act in ways simple minded 90s porn actresses might not have the best grasp on.
Reddit sucks because it's full of 19-year-olds who think they know better than everyone else about everything. Made worse by the fact that this particular bunch of 19 year olds is all autistic, depressed, ridden with social anxiety or otherwise mentally damaged.
Holy fuck that thread. I knew ghazi was bad, but not this far gone.
I hope this is a wake up call for some of the saner people in that place about the company they keep.
Literally approaching a woman is harassment? How do these people function? And they expect everyone to abide by these rules? How long has it been since they talked to someone outside their echo chamber, because it seems they have no grasp whatsoever of normal human interaction.
Ghazi/menslib-approved guide for expressing sexual interest:
Slowly approach womyn, eyes on the ground. Sudden, quick movements may trigger her. Ask for enthusiastic consent to make eye contact and begin a conversation.
Get told to fuck off because she can smell your low testosterone.
Complain on reddit about getting told to fuck off despite being such a great ally.
This is gamerghazi. They have to have some ridiculous notions on what harassment is to still be thinking gamergate is some sort of international organized harassment cabal.
No, I said it multiple times. I genuinely don't want to be bothered. It's not my place to police other people (despite getting snarky in that thread) but I want to be left alone.
Anyway, you understand why your moral rule might be a bad one if we universalized it for the entire humanity yes? it would create a lot of misery considering how most people enjoy the company and spontaneity of human interaction.
He sounds like a pick-up artist who managed to learn just enough social justice jargon to blend in and start peddling his toxicity to people who really ought to know better.
Exactly! Exactly! Thank you!
These people are LARPing ad human beings. No way they're from this planet.
Excuse me? People should have complete agency on who they choose to talk to, why did you respond to that comment without knowing if they wanted to talk to you?
When I was younger – and I mean from teeanger hood all the way until about three years ago – I was a ‘nice guy’. And I said the same thing as every other nice guy, which is “I am a nice guy, how come girls don’t like me?”
There seems to be some confusion about this, so let me explain what it means, to everyone, for all time.
It does not mean “I am nice in some important cosmic sense, therefore I am entitled to sex with whomever I want.”
It means: “I am a nicer guy than Henry.”
Or to spell it out very carefully, Henry clearly has no trouble attracting partners. He’s been married five times and had multiple extra-marital affairs and pre-marital partners, many of whom were well aware of his past domestic violence convictions and knew exactly what they were getting into. Meanwhile, here I was, twenty-five years old, never been on a date in my life, every time I ask someone out I get laughed at, I’m constantly teased and mocked for being a virgin and a nerd whom no one could ever love, starting to develop a serious neurosis about it.
Edit: You post on /r/foreveralone, you think the fact that you don't want anyone to talk to you without your explicit consent might have something to do with it?
You're asking for a woman to do all the emotional work of initiating and shoulder all the burden of rejection. That doesn't seem particularly feminist.
An interesting, but inadvertent admission that men have been shouldering most of the "emotional burden" for centuries.
I really don't understand how so many guys can be so inept at the so-called "dating game". Just be genuinely nice and interested. I always find that if it's meant to be, she'll initiate. There is no "hitting on"
women "initiate"; men "harass"
You have no way of knowing whether a woman wants you to approach her unless you do, in which case you're basically saying "I accept that I am going to make some women uncomfortable when I approach them and this is an acceptable risk to me" which is not absolutely not okay.
Unintentionally making someone uncomfortable = not okay. Got it.
If someone's actually interested in you, they will tell you. If they're not, they won't. It's not that complicated!
A woman telling me she is interested when I don't reciprocate makes me uncomfortable. This is not okay.
It's not that complicated!
It wasn't before they tried to impose their anxiety-driven personal preferences on the rest of society.
It's not really conceding anything though? Again it's a common acknowledgement that a patriarchal society does negatively effect men. Men being the ones society expects to initiate relationships is certainly a negative aspect.
Ah, the feminazi shuffle. Speak in generalities, and you won't address generalities. Speak about a specific incident, and 'there are many feminisms', so you won't address that, either.
No matter what, your kind makes an excuse not to address anything you find uncomfortable. It's become too obvious not to ignore these rhetorical tricks feminists rely on to avoid any actual discussion, rather than their preferred method of communication, lecture giving.
We are talking here about flirting, right? And the concommitant issues with failed flirting with someone who you have to interact professionally afterward.
Now, a sane approach would be to understand that flirting is a necessary part of the dating process. And that at some point, someone will need to take the initiative and a take a risk to flirt with another person, without knowing if that will work out or be reciprocated. Then a social structure in which approved methods, places and manners of flirting can be agreed upon where both the person flirter, and the flirtee know what is expected of them.
The insane approach is to just randomly blame "the patriarchy" for this and insist that if we just get rid of the patriarchy, everything will be ok. Cause it won't, since "the patriarchy" isn't the reason why people flirt. Nor does it address the key point here, which has nothing to do with flirting at all, but with managing the fallout when flirting fails.
We are talking here about flirting, right? And the concommitant issues with failed flirting with someone who you have to interact professionally afterward.
I've got a feeling you didn't read what the discussion was about.
The insane approach is to just randomly blame "the patriarchy" for this and insist that if we just get rid of the patriarchy, everything will be ok.
Yeah there it is I figured. So yeah you're arguing about a strawman. Neither the article that was posted on Ghazi nor any of the downvoted and deleted comments were talking about how flirting is the result of a patriarchy. You've made that point up whole cloth.
To explain what i mean, i'll address your point directly. Here. What i'm trying to point out is that when you say "Men being the ones society expects to initiate relationships is certainly a negative aspect." You act like that's the end of.
No?
The implication is that state of affairs is a wierd construct of "the patriarchy" and once overthrown, everything will be a-ok.
Since when has overthrowing something ever solved all problems dude? Like if that's what you take away from a statement I can't really prevent you from make that leap of logic. Perhaps ask for clarification instead of assuming others points?
See, the problem men have is that we don't know how flirting will be recieved, or what the line is between harmless flirting and harassment. We can't know
....uhh. It's a pretty simple rule. If the other party can't disengage from the flirting don't do it. The second the other party decides they don't want to participate in your flirting move on. Most harrassment comes from people who don't get that second part.
Thus, not being mindreaders, it's not actually possible 100% of the time to know when the person you are attempting to flirt with will be made uncomfortable by your flirting.
It's a good thing that being made uncomfortable isn't considered harassment by most people or judges. It's just considered a creep thing to do and certain guidelines are established of how to avoid making people uncomfortable.
Most social interaction isn't entirely opaque and yet making someone uncomfortable (regardless of gender) is never considered a good thing and is something most people would recommend avoiding doing too much.
So yeah you're arguing about a strawman. Neither the article that was posted on Ghazi nor any of the downvoted and deleted comments were talking about how flirting is the result of a patriarchy. You've made that point up whole cloth.
Oh? So you didn't type the following?
it's a common acknowledgement that a patriarchal society does negatively effect men. Men being the ones society expects to initiate relationships is certainly a negative aspect.
Since when has overthrowing something ever solved all problems dude?
If it won't, then why do you act like it will?
It's a pretty simple rule. If the other party can't disengage from the flirting don't do it. The second the other party decides they don't want to participate in your flirting move on. Most harrassment comes from people who don't get that second part.
Brah, the following is a direct quote from the linked thread. It does not define "sexual harrassment" as requiring the woman being unable to disengage, and DOES define it as requiring her to be made uncomfortable. I highlighted some words in bold to make that more obvious.
What I'm saying is that, even without any physical contact, that is still a form sexual harassment. A minor form, but a form nonetheless. It is putting a complete stranger in an uncomfortable social position without their consent for no other reason than because they give you a boner. The actual argument is between people who think that that's borderline predatory behavior that needs to stop and people who think it's perfectly fine to make random women on the street fear for their lives because they turn you on.
This sentiment, which you apparently agree is shitty, is fairly common and prevalent among modern feminists.
Uhh. You might want to try reading that again dude. Flirting isn't a result of the patriarchy men being expected to be the only one initiating flirting IS and THAT is what is negative. Flitting is a okay but it's kinda shitty that men are expected to be the initiators and women who initiate are considered weird. Read what is there not what you want to be there.
If it won't, then why do you act like it will?
When did I act that it will or is it again you drawing an erroneous conclusion based on a point you hope I will make? DO you have some requirement that parties must make clear that when they want society to be improved in a certain way they have to exclaim that the improvements wont fix all problems in society?
This sentiment, which you apparently agree is shitty, is fairly common and prevalent among modern feminists.
The downvoted to hell comment that a bunch a feminists were making fun of is common among feminists declares reddits top scientist.
I'm reading exactly what you're typing, brah. Maybe clarify your thoughts better if you want me to read anything other than exactly what you wrote.
DO you have some requirement that parties must make clear that when they want society to be improved in a certain way they have to exclaim that the improvements wont fix all problems in society?
Not all problems. But at the very least, it should fix the problem you claim to want improved.
You: "if we get rid of the patriarchy, then men won't have to initiate flirting any more"
Me: "lol no, that's not logical and you haven't really thought through how that's going to work"
You: "well, i didn't say getting rid of the patriarchy would fix ALL problems"
See how dumb that conversation is? That's all on you.
The downvoted to hell comment that a bunch a feminists were making fun of is common among feminists declares reddits top scientist.
And THERE is the no true scotsman argument i've been waiting for.
I'm reading exactly what you're typing, brah. Maybe clarify your thoughts better if you want me to read anything other than exactly what you wrote.
It's right there my dude. You wanted a strawman and misread. you don't have to get upset about it.
Not all problems. But at the very least, it should fix the problem you claim to want improved.
No? Like you get socialization is a thing and merely removing the thing that causes said socialization won't just magically make it go away. Are you a hashtag activist or something? I can see no other reason you would think such an inane thing.
Me: If we get rid of a patriarchy then it won't be considered a bad thing for men to be the passive ones when it comes to flirting.
You: Why are you saying removing a patriarchy will fix all problems
Me: lol
You: NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!
And THERE is the no true scotsman argument i've been waiting for.
Holy shit I'm a prohpet. lol. SO okay my dude lemme explain how a no True Scotsman argument works. I have to say a generalization like "No feminist would ever slut shame" then you would provide an example of a feminist slut shaming and then I would say "yeah but that's not a REAL feminist"
You being an idiot and saying "this quote I have linked is very common for feminists to say" and me saying "I don't think the downvoted comment on a feminist subreddit is a good example" is not really a No true scotsman argument. I am not arguing that feminists don't have that opinion clearly some of them do as that quote is a real albeit dumb, idea just that it is not a common belief as you allege.
Might want to add this information to the informal fallacy list you have sticky noted to your monitor.
If we get rid of a patriarchy then it wouldn't be considered a bad thing for men to be the passive ones when it comes to flirting.
See, here's the problem. At no point did anyone in any of these threads being that up as an issue. I'm not sure if you just misread the conversation, or if you are deliberately changing your argument.
Like you get socialization is a thing and merely removing the thing that causes said socialization won't just magically make it go away.
Actually, that is how a cause and effect relationship works. If something "causes" a given effect, then removing the given "cause" should also lead to the effect going away. If it doesn't, then we need to revisit what the true cause was.
I am not arguing that feminists don't have that opinion clearly some of them do as that quote is a real albeit dumb, idea
If you're not actually arguing with me, then why do you keep typing? You could easily, from the start, have just said "yeah, I agree with you that some feminists are dumb and believe dumb things. But i think that those are outliers and overall the movement is more focused on real issues and improving the lot of everyone". Then, we could have had a much more productive conversation about what the modern feminist movement really means and how the solutions you think it represents can be beneficial to fixing problems, specifically the issue in this conversation about flirting and having to take a risk to initiate a conversation without knowing if the other person will be receptive.
See, here's the problem. At no point did anyone in any of these threads being that up as an issue. I'm not sure if you just misread the conversation, or if you are deliberately changing your argument.
This entire thing stemmed from you misreading an argument from my inital statement which was:
it's a common acknowledgement that a patriarchal society does negatively effect men. Men being the ones society expects to initiate relationships is certainly a negative aspect.
You drew a super erroneous conclusion from me saying "society expecting one gender and only one gender to do a thing is bad"
Actually, that is how a cause and effect relationship works. If something "causes" a given effect, then removing the given "cause" should also lead to the effect going away. If it doesn't, then we need to revisit what the true cause was.
So yeah you don't understand how socialization works. Removing the cause of socialization will eventually remove the thing it's socializing from society but it's not a magic wand that immediately removes it.
So to put it in easier terms for you the patriarchy doesn't directly cause the result of socialization it however IS responsible for the socialization and removal of the patriarchy would remove social conditioning which in turn would solve issues related to men and women being socialized into roles they might not be comfortable with. Hence men will no longer be expected to have the onus on them in dating which means that less men will feel forced to have to be the ones doing the flirting and shouldering the emotional burden of rejection blah blah blah.
Like if you think the feminist argument against the patriarchy is it's going around and directly forcing women to not get jobs in the tech sector and other traditionally male dominated fields then you don't understand the basics of feminist theory and you might want to look into it before ranting on the internet about feminazis.
If you're not actually arguing with me, then why do you keep typing?
Ugh
You could easily, from the start, have just said "yeah, I agree with you that some feminists are dumb and believe dumb things. But i think that those are outliers and overall the movement is more focused on real issues and improving the lot of everyone".
I am impressed that you admit to intentionally misrepresenting my points. Like I never said all feminist were the wisest creatures in the universe and had never done anything bad or dumb at all. YOU assumed that because the only people you've had conversations with about this were 1) People who agree with you and 2) Tumblr stereotypes.
Of course I didn't preface my argument with "some feminists are dumb" because no shit some people in everything are dumb. Every single thing you will talk about in the human condition will have outliers I just assumed you were aware of this fact and I guess I'm sorry you understood people? I really don't know what to say to that honestly.
the patriarchy doesn't directly cause the result of socialization it however IS responsible for the socialization and removal of the patriarchy would remove social conditioning
So, what you are saying is that the problem isn't "the patriarchy", it’s how women are socialized?
I think we can agree with that. Which, if you recall, has been my point all along. That rather than discussing a logical nexus between how people are socialized and discussing possible ways to alter that socialization, some feminists have a tendency to just wave "the patriarchy" around as a magic fix. Then instead of actually explaining the link from point A "the patriarchy" to point b "the issue that needs fixing", they throw out a "well, trust me if you really knew feminist theory, you'd agree with me." Which, just to be clear since you haven't been getting my hints so far, is literally the thing you are doing right now.
Personally, i don't think it's appropriate to blame "the patriarchy" for how women are socialized around dating. First, I think it's much more appropriate to blame feminine notions of polite and socially correct behavior for a generally passive attitude toward interaction with others. Engaging in social contact with someone who may not want you to is an inherently aggressive action. Second, I think that to whatever degree "the patriarchy" still exists today, it does not restrict women from chatting up dudes first. Maybe 100 years ago, one could say that men frown upon women asking them out. But in 2017? Even the most socially conservative dude is totally ok with it.
Of course I didn't preface my argument with "some feminists are dumb" because no shit some people in everything are dumb.
Then why did you argue with a post whose essense was "people don't have an issue with feminists because they point out that world is not perfect, they have an issue with feminists because sometimes they say dumb shit in an attempt to fix it".
So, what you are saying is that the problem isn't "the patriarchy", it’s how women are socialized?
In the same way that the problem isn't that a house is on fire it's the structural failing that causes the house to collapse.
That rather than discussing a logical nexus between how people are socialized and discussing possible ways to alter that socialization,
It's rather difficult to fix socialization when the apparatus that causes said socialization is in place.
some feminists have a tendency to just wave "the patriarchy" around as a magic fix.
Who cares? People outside of their internet communities don't take them seriously
Personally, i don't think it's appropriate to blame "the patriarchy" for how women are socialized around dating.
Not blaming a society for the way people are socialized is an incredibly reddit thing to do.
First, I think it's much more appropriate to blame feminine notions of polite and socially correct behavior for a generally passive attitude toward interaction with others.
Did those feminine notions come from space? Magic? The gestalt entity of female? If it came from a place would you not argue it came from the society in which they were raised in?
Second, I think that to whatever degree "the patriarchy" still exists today, it does not restrict women from chatting up dudes first. Maybe 100 years ago, one could say that men frown upon women asking them out. But in 2017? Even the most socially conservative dude is totally ok with it.
Restricts as in looks down on? Yes it absolutely does. No it doesn't physically prevent them anymore than it puts a gun to a mans head and tells him not to report when he's been rape. It just discourages these things.
Then why did you argue with a post whose essense was "people don't have an issue with feminists because they point out that world is not perfect, they have an issue with feminists because sometimes they say dumb shit in an attempt to fix it".
....seriously? Men are rapists. Do you have a problem with that statement?
Not blaming a society for the way people are socialized is an incredibly reddit thing to do.
"Society" and "the patriarchy" are not actually synonyms. You do reakize this, right?
Did those feminine notions come from space? Magic? The gestalt entity of female?
It came from other women. Who, by virtue of being women, can't really be counted as a patriarchy. This, again, is the point you're missing. That when you slap every problem with society as being the fault of a nebulous "patriarchy", you ignore the very real role in which women themselves play a part in shaping society. Sure, you can argue that those women are simply reinforcing patriarchal notions. But then we need to ask, where did those patriarchial notions come from? And, who is still reinforcing them in 2017? If the answer to either question isn't dudes, then you can't blame "the patriarchy". And i repeat, these sort of societal attitudes, in these days, are mostly coming from women.
Men are rapists. Do you have a problem with that statement?
NotAllMen.
The implication in that statement being that while i agree that "some" men are rapists, not all are.
Note how i have been careful throughout this conversation to stress that only some feminists sometimes say dumb shit. I've already done half the work for you. All you need to do is stop being defensive of any criticism of feminism and feminists and really try to understand what I'm trying to tell you.
"Society" and "the patriarchy" are not actually synonyms. You do reakize this, right?
You understand that the US and most nations are patriarchal societies correct?
It came from other women. Who, by virtue of being women
So women just one day came along and decided to all be like a thing. You actually think it came from the gestalt entity of woman. lol.
But then we need to ask, where did those patriarchial notions come from?
A predominately male power structure. AKA a patriarchy
And, who is still reinforcing them in 2017? If the answer to either question isn't dudes, then you can't blame "the patriarchy"
A predominately male power structure. AKA a patriarchy
NotAllMen
So you DO have a problem with the statement Men are rapists. Now I guess you understand my problem with saying feminists are like X.
Note how i have been careful throughout this conversation to stress that only some feminists sometimes say dumb shit. I've already done half the work for you. All you need to do is stop being defensive of any criticism of feminism and feminists and really try to understand what I'm trying to tell you.
You understand that the US and most nations are patriarchal societies correct?
I would question that the current US society is a truly patriarchal society, yes. But that's a different argument than the one we are having.
First, when someone says "the patriarchy", unless they are already a feminist, most people don't interpret that as meaning "current society". We interpret that (as it's original intent) to mean an system of men oppressing women. If you don't want to be misunderstood, then it's obviously better to just use the less easily misunderstood word "society".
Second, if you work through that logic, basically what you are saying is "society is the reason why society has issues". Which is an entirely pointless thing to say. Sure it sounds fancy when you say "the patriarchy is the reason why society has issues". But logically, if "society" and "the patriarchy" synonymous, then really, you're just saying the first thing.
So women just one day came along and decided to all be like a thing. You actually think it came from the gestalt entity of woman. lol.
It's better than thinking it came from the gestalt entity of man. Or denying that women had any role in shaping our modern society.
We interpret that (as it's original intent) to mean an system of men oppressing women.
You could just admit that you were misinterpreting a word. Instead you have decided to make up that you were actually using the word to mean it's original meaning when no you just didn't understand that the patriarchy is referring to a patriarchal society.
If you don't want to be misunderstood, then it's obviously better to just use the less easily misunderstood word "society".
Well that's stupid. Societies aren't nesscarily the problem patriarchal societies are.
Second, if you work through that logic, basically what you are saying is "society is the reason why society has issues". Which is an entirely pointless thing to say.
Hence the reason why the term the patriarchy is used. You've literally just tricked yourself into understanding.
It's better than thinking it came from the gestalt entity of man.
"My erroneous point is justified because I am a man and feel like it'd be better if you blamed the gender that is not me"
THese things didn't come from the gestalt entity of men (I don't think you know what gestalt means btw) as I said the problems came from a society ran by one gender that has a vested interest in maintaining power into the hands of aforementioned gender, it just happened to be men. It could have been women and you'd see similar problems about a matriarchy.
Or denying that women had any role in shaping our modern society.
Hence the reason why the term the patriarchy is used. You've literally just tricked yourself into understanding.
You're still not getting it. It doesn't actually matter what specific words you say, the logical chain still has to connect.
Either you mean "current society" when you say "the patriarchy", in which case that's a dumb and pointless thing to say. Or you mean something else, in which case you need to explain what that thing is, and how it connects to the problem you've identified and seek to resolve.
Just saying "well, once we change society, everything will work itself out" is pointless.
It doesn't actually matter what specific words you say, the logical chain still has to connect.
You made a gigantic post about how words were very important and now they don't.
Just saying "well, once we change society, everything will work itself out" is pointless.
Saying once we change society for the better things will get better is a pretty obvious statement. Here lets try another statement from a few hundred years ago.
Once we remove the aristocracy things will improve.
You made a gigantic post about how words were very important and now they don't.
Do you understand how multi-prong arguments work? There isn't only a single thing wrong with the things you are saying. There are multiple things wrong. One problem is that the words you use obsfuscate your point. Another problem is that even if we clear up the confusion, your point still doesn't have any logic behind it. You need to fix both problems.
Saying once we change society for the better things will get better is a pretty obvious statement.
No, it isn't. First, because it assumes that the changes you want to make are inherently better without doing any of the logical work to prove it. Second, because even if the changes themselves are better from a moral/ethical perspective, you still need to prove how they will result in a resolution of the problem at hand.
Once we remove the aristocracy things will improve.
DO you find that statement pointless too?
Considering the history of such revolts, yes.
Look at the French Revolution. Bunch of high minded idealists claiming that if you just got rid of Aristos, everything would be better. Was it? The Reign of Terror would suggest otherwise.
Arguing with you is like arguing with an extreme libertarian. Everything is resolved by "the free market". Sure, "the free market" and competition are good, the same way equality of the sexes is good. But you can't just wave the free market at every problem like a magic wand. In the same way, you can't just wave "ending the patriarchy" at every problem.
No, it isn't. First, because it assumes that the changes you want to make are inherently better without doing any of the logical work to prove it. Second, because even if the changes themselves are better from a moral/ethical perspective, you still need to prove how they will result in a resolution of the problem at hand.
....?
You understand that most conversations don't end with "end the patriarchy and things good" right? Like in an actual conversation about problems caused by the patriarchy usually involved why the patriarchy causes them and why removing it would improve things.
Look at the French Revolution. Bunch of high minded idealists claiming that if you just got rid of Aristos, everything would be better. Was it? The Reign of Terror would suggest otherwise.
Considering France does not currently have a starving peasant class that comprises of 70 percent of the population things have worked out pretty well.
You understand that most conversations don't end with "end the patriarchy and things good" right?
What I understand is that in this conversation i'm having with you, right now, you haven't actually developed any further from "end the patriarchy and things good". I don't need a Tumblr feminist strawman to argue against. You, yourself, right now, are a pretty good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.
What I understand is that in this conversation i'm having with you, right now, you haven't actually developed any further from "end the patriarchy and things good". I don't need a Tumblr feminist strawman to argue against. You, yourself, right now, are a pretty good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.
Well mostly because I pointed out how flirting would be a lot better without the patriarchy I explained why then you had a semantics argument of whether we should use the term patriarchy or society.
Are you really, honestly, arguing in favor of the Reign of Terror?
Are you really honestly arguing in favor of the mass starvation of the majority of France?
Well mostly because I pointed out how flirting would be a lot better without the patriarchy I explained why
No, you actually didn't do that. You just claimed it would be, without actually explaining the logical chain in which that would work.
Are you really honestly arguing in favor of the mass starvation of the majority of France?
Again, going back to the my original point. The problem is not that feminists are unable to spot and identify problems. It's that their proposed solutions to those problems are shitty and/or unworkable. Starvation is bad, yes. But the Reign of Terror isn't good either. Maybe a solution that avoids either is the one we ought to be considering. Like, for example, how England managed to come out of the 18th century and into a more egalitarian society in the 19th ad 20th centuries without mass murder and mayhem.
Yes I did. I had to explain what socialization was to you because you were apparently unaware.
No, you didn't. All you did was say the same thing again.
Here's what you said.
So yeah you don't understand how socialization works. Removing the cause of socialization will eventually remove the thing it's socializing from society but it's not a magic wand that immediately removes it.
So to put it into more specific terms for you the patriarchy doesn't directly cause the result of socialization it however IS responsible for the socialization and removal of the patriarchy would remove social conditioning which in turn would solve issues related to men and women being socialized into roles they might not be comfortable with. Hence men will no longer be expected to have the onus on them in dating which means that less men will feel forced to have to be the ones doing the flirting and shouldering the emotional burden of rejection blah blah blah.
Paraphrased down to it's essense and with all the buzzwords stripped out, it is: "Ending patriarchy will stop the chain of events that leads to men being forced to bear the emotion burden of rejection".
That's not a proof. It's not an argument. It's you just stating a thing you believe to be true and expecting everyone to take your word for it.
Paraphrased down to it's essense and with all the buzzwords stripped out, it is:
Socialization is a buzzword to you. lol
See, here's what i'd expect from a coherent argument. (1) A defined and clear statement of the problem.
Did it.
(2) An description of the specific solution proposed to resolve that problem.
Removal of an unequal system. This can be done through a wide variety of means including electing more female voices to positions of power, changing the way the media portrays masculinity and career paths. Like it's a huge topic that is constantly discussed by people outside the internet.
Unless you're just talking about the flirting thing in which case here is an easy step by step guide that I have already said.
1)Men and women are socialized to expect men to start flirting. (if I need to explain how this is unfair I'm going to withdraw from talking with you)
2) Socialization comes from well society which is currently one run primarily by one gender (men)
3) In order to improve the problem the socialization must first be removed.
4) this is done through either removing or changing the societal power structure that is causing afore mentioned inequality or work within the patriarchy (see typing "Societal power structure run primarily by men" is really long so a shorter term was made)
The latter is difficult if they have a vested interest in keeping the socialization in place and since the reason why men are told to initiate is because they are constantly told that they should be taking charge of women instead of the other way around this would obviously be against the patriarchys own interests to fix.
A step by step causal chain from implementing the solution to the problem being resolved.
Uhhh. This is not something you have done for literally any of your arguments. You seem to acknowledge there is a problem with society but have left the solution at "it's the gender that is not me's fault. I've also already done this but now I've put it in an easier to read format for your particular needs.
But you haven't explained what "ending patriarchy" actually means in terms of concrete actions. Does it mean, as most might assume in this context, stiffer penalties for and an expanded definition of workplace sexual harrasment? Better pay? More Sadie Hawkins dances?
Wait... you actually think the primary purpose of ending the patriarchy would be to get women to initiate flirting more. Jesus Christ lol.
I think it should be obvious how people might disagree with a statement that making it easier to be accused of sexual harrasment is help to men afraid of initiating.
Ah the typical reddit thing. Make an argument no one has said then argue against it in the same breath.
And, yeah, you do have to actually walk through your logic. If you can't show how your solution is going to resolve the problem, how do you expect anyone to believe in it?
sigh
And yet, often people like you not only fail to do just that, but they get unreasonably angry at the expectation that they should explain their own arguments.
The problem with your logic chain comes from here:
2) Socialization comes from well society which is currently one run primarily by one gender (men)
3) In order to improve the problem the socialization must first be removed.
There is a logical gap between those two statements that you apparently cannot see.
Here's what I mean. We can agree that western society was historically patriarchal. And we can agree that the effects of that patriarchy lingers. I personally would disagree with the statement that society is STILL primarily controlled by men, or at least with the extent to which you apparently believe it is, but that's a separate issue.
But, then you jump from "our socialization comes from a patriarchal society" to "in order to improve the problem of women not initiating flirting, we must remove that socialization". Those statements are not directly connected. You still need to first explain how a patriarchial society is the only (or even the primary) thing responsible for women not initiating flirting.
The second issue is that you need to define what "remove the socialization" would entail. You added a lot of nice sounding bullshit (at least I assume I sounds nice to you) about "changing the societal power structure". But ultimately, you still haven't actually given a concrete idea of what that would be. It's just vague enough to sound good without actually meaning anything useful for this specific problem.
Again, i'm not actually arguing about whether ending patriarchy is a good thing. What I'm saying is that when people respond to someone complaining about an issue with a vague and unhelpful non-solution, it's incredibly irritating.
the reason why men are told to initiate is because they are constantly told that they should be taking charge of women instead of the other way around
This is not true. At all. The reason most men are told to initiate in this day and age is because otherwise, we won't ever get laid. It has nothing to do with trying to be the person in charge, and everything to do with lack of choice. There's a reason most current advice for men about how to flirt or pick up women tends to have a tinge of salesmanship to it. It's because, most often, the dynamics of dating for dudes tends to have the sense of trying to sell an unpalatable product to a largely uninterested demographic.
There are very few dudes who subscribe to the "red pill" philosophy of a he-man alpha who does things like ordering food for his dates to show he's in control, etc. And yet, just about every single dude will tell you that the only thing that works when dating is to just take the initiative, ask women out and suck up the constant rejection until you succeed. Cause sitting on your ass and waiting for them to come to you will never, ever, work.
This is not something you have done for literally any of your arguments. You seem to acknowledge there is a problem with society but have left the solution at "it's the gender that is not me's fault.
Yeah, because i'm not actually arguing for the resolution of a problem. I'm pointing out that the reason why people get irritated by people like you is because of the way you act, and then highlighting examples of the flaws that cause that irritation.
you actually think the primary purpose of ending the patriarchy would be to get women to initiate flirting more.
No. What i think is that if presented with a problem "how to get women to initiate flirting more", your suggested solution (e.g. "end the patriarchy") should be tailored to actually solving that problem. It doesn't matter if ending the patriarchy is the best idea since sliced bread and will cause kittens to shit rainbows and spontaneous orgasms for everyone in the world, if it doesn't solve the problem at hand, it's not a good solution to that problem.
I personally would disagree with the statement that society is STILL primarily controlled by men, or at least with the extent to which you apparently believe it is, but that's a separate issue.
The majority of lawmakers are men. Hmmmmm.
But, then you jump from "our socialization comes from a patriarchal society" to "in order to improve the problem of women not initiating flirting, we must remove that socialization". Those statements are not directly connected. You still need to first explain how a patriarchial society is the only (or even the primary) thing responsible for women not initiating flirting.
I... are you real? So like I need to understand how much of a make believe world you live in so before I answer that question I need to ask where do you think the pressure on men starting flirting comes from?
The second issue is that you need to define what "remove the socialization" would entail. You added a lot of nice sounding bullshit (at least I assume I sounds nice to you) about "changing the societal power structure". But ultimately, you still haven't actually given a concrete idea of what that would be.
Because that's not really the topic of conversation? Like pointing out a fire needs to be put out on a building doesn't mean you need a detailed analysis on fighting the fire complete with logistical plans in order to say "Maybe the building should not be on fire" Again as I've pointed out you don't hold to your own standard so why should I waste my time?
This is not true. At all. The reason most men are told to initiate in this day and age is because otherwise, we won't ever get laid.
Christ you're dense.
It has nothing to do with trying to be the person in charge, and everything to do with lack of choice.
lol
There's a reason most current advice for men about how to flirt or pick up women tends to have a tinge of salesmanship to it.
Alright my dude you've never flirted. You've watched sitcoms on what you think flirting looks like but jesus christ.
It's because, most often, the dynamics of dating for dudes tends to have the sense of trying to sell an unpalatable product to a largely uninterested demographic.
Yeah this isn't projection not at all.
So outside of how sad that got where in the world do you think the idea of men should be lol used car salsemen and women should be... car buyers??? come from? Did it come from magic? Did it come from the gestalt entity of women? OOOOOOOOooooor?
There are very few dudes who subscribe to the "red pill" philosophy of a he-man alpha who does things like ordering food for his dates to show he's in control, etc.
I have a feeling you're about to contradict yourself
And yet, just about every single dude will tell you that the only thing that works when dating is to just take the initiative
**in·i·ti·a·tive
iˈniSH(ē)ədiv/
noun
the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do.**
hmmmm
Yeah, because i'm not actually arguing for the resolution of a problem.
You've made several inane arguments to support your propositions that you didn't bother supporting beyond opening your.... unique brand of thinking to the public at large.
No. What i think is that if presented with a problem "how to get women to initiate flirting more"
that's not the problem though? The problem is that men feel like they are supposed to be the ones to initiate and also that women are told they are supposed to wait for a man to initiate. Just changing the former would fix the latter.
But you think that the idea that men are supposed to be knights and women are supposed to be damsels came from women so lol.
Like pointing out a fire needs to be put out on a building doesn't mean you need a detailed analysis on fighting the fire complete with logistical plans in order to say "Maybe the building should not be on fire"
If a house is on fire, and a bunch of people stand around smugly saying "yup, I told you, your house is on fire, maybe it shouldn't be on fire", one would be reasonably irritated at their lack of usefulness.
So outside of how sad that got where in the world do you think the idea of men should be lol used car salsemen and women should be... car buyers??? come from? Did it come from magic?
It certainly didn't come from the historical notions of patriarchy. In a patriarchy, the person who controlled things would be her DAD, right? Hence trying to create a connection with a woman directly was less important.
Where it comes from is the fairly obvious understanding that in order to get what you want from life, you (normally) have to be active in seeking it out. Dating and Sales are fairly similar in terms of the need to create a connection with a stranger. So also is making friends, which is why a lot of sales tips and tactics focus on the idea of leveraging common skills for making friends into skills for developing a aquaintance level relationship and using that relationship to sell a product.
See, i don't find it odd that guys get dating advice similar to sales tactics. What I find odd is that women generally don't.
in·i·ti·a·tive iˈniSH(ē)ədiv/ noun 2. the power or opportunity to act or take charge before others do.
Here's a better definition: the ability to assess and initiate things independently.
The problem is that men feel like they are supposed to be the ones to initiate and also that women are told they are supposed to wait for a man to initiate. Just changing the former would fix the latter.
I don't think it will work like that automatically. It seems more likely that we will simply end up with a situation where everyone sits around passive-aggressively waiting for someone else to take action.
And after a long enough period of this, someone (probably dudes) will realize it's not working and start taking initiative again. The reason I suspect it will be dudes is because dudes generally have physical less risk when it comes to dating, so it's easier for them to take initiative. Women are generally smaller and physically weaker, so there's a higher risk to a their physical safety. Which is one of the reasons why they aren't as driven to initiate contact that may end up poorly. Also, the mechanics of the male orgasm and the female orgasm differ enough that it's generally easier for men to experience pleasure during sex than women. Maybe, hopefully, that will change as women are more socialized to be sex-positive, explore their own bodies and figure out how to guarantee their own pleasure. But I suspect it won't change all that much. There's just certain physical realities of how penises work versus how vaginas work.
Do i have a suggestion for how to change this? Not really. But I'm also not enough of a idiot to suggest otherwise and trumpet aloud a half-baked solution that's as likely to exacerbate the problem as to fix it.
But you think that the idea that men are supposed to be knights and women are supposed to be damsels came from women so lol.
The practice of courtly love was developed in the castle life of four regions: Aquitaine, Provence, Champagne and ducal Burgundy, from around the time of the First Crusade (1099). Eleanor of Aquitaine brought ideals of courtly love from Aquitaine first to the court of France, then to England, where she was queen to two kings. Her daughter Marie, Countess of Champagne brought courtly behavior to the Count of Champagne's court.
It's been fairly well established that the chilvalric tradition was created/promulgated by women.
This is why I say you seem to be discounting the influence of women on society. Even in the most patriarchal society, women still had influence and control over some aspects of socialization.
Courtly love (or fin'amor in Occitan) was a medieval European literary conception of love that emphasized nobility and chivalry. Medieval literature is filled with examples of knights setting out on adventures and performing various services for ladies because of their "courtly love". This kind of love is originally a literary fiction created for the entertainment of the nobility, but as time passed, these ideas about love changed and attracted a larger audience. In the high Middle Ages, a "game of love" developed around these ideas as a set of social practices.
If a house is on fire, and a bunch of people stand around smugly saying "yup, I told you, your house is on fire, maybe it shouldn't be on fire", one would be reasonably irritated at their lack of usefulness.
Yes thats definitely the thing yep. Please have some experience outside the internet.
It certainly didn't come from the historical notions of patriarchy.
Oh that's right we never had literally hundreds of years of women being considered almost entirely on their dowry and how many sons they could make. Silly me.
In a patriarchy, the person who controlled things would be her DAD, right?
....what
Hence trying to create a connection with a woman directly was less important.
No seriously what?
So also is making friends, which is why a lot of sales tips and tactics focus on the idea of leveraging common skills for making friends into skills for developing a aquaintance level relationship and using that relationship to sell a product.
You either don't know anything about sales or human relationships and I'm honestly fifty fifty on which it could be.
See, i don't find it odd that guys get dating advice similar to sales tactics. What I find odd is that women generally don't.
I'm guessing there is a lot of things you don't understand about women.
Here's a better definition: the ability to assess and initiate things independently.
Not for the phrase "take the initiative" that's entirely the second definition of the word and it's the dang phrase you used.
We can take lesbian relationships as similar case study. A 1993 study of lesbian relationships found that lesbian couple often had more difficulty initiating or balancing sex.
I'm not sure that a study taken during the height of gay panic is nesscarily the best source.
Also, the mechanics of the male orgasm and the female orgasm differ enough that it's generally easier for men to experience pleasure during sex than women. Maybe, hopefully, that will change as women are more socialized to be sex-positive, explore their own bodies and figure out how to guarantee their own pleasure. But I suspect it won't change all that much.
this reveals a lot more about you than I'd like to know. Stop being selfish in bed men.
Do i have a suggestion for how to change this? Not really. But I'm also not enough of a idiot to suggest otherwise and trumpet aloud a half-baked solution that's as likely to exacerbate the problem as to fix it.
You've already come up with several half baked solutions your last one was "women need to get better at orgasms because men are bad at sex."
But I suspect it won't change all that much. There's just certain physical realities of how penises work versus how vaginas work.
Seriously get better at sex. Your partner regardless of gender will thank you.
I wish I had the fucking gall to say I was trolling you the whole time but no sadly I wasn't.
It's been fairly well established that the chilvalric tradition was created/promulgated by women.
Mhmm but you're kind of ignoring why it was spread and created in the first place. Because getting fucked was the chief responsibility of foisted onto women. But like no. Chivalry was definitely created and ignored by dudes. The courtly love chunk was mostly spread by women because what the fuck else are you going to do when you're mostly considered property?
Yes thats definitely the thing yep. Please have some experience outside the internet.
You keep saying this like it means something. The internet isn't some magical land peopled by crazy robots with no connection to the real world. Let me assure you right now, the same people who say stupid things on the internet, also say those same things in real life. I'll bet that when in a dinner party if prompted, you'd say the same exact same things about how "ending the patriarchy" is the solution to dating issues men having with having to initiate.
You either don't know anything about sales or human relationships and I'm honestly fifty fifty on which it could be.
I'm fairly certain you're the one who doesn't understand either fully if you really can't see the connection.
There's this thing I've noticed where people who don't spend much time thinking about the things they do and why they do the things they do, tend to be highly resistant to any analysis of behavior that seeks to maximize results. Especially when it's couched in deliberately unsentimental terms like I did just then.
The irony is, if I said something like "the best thing to do in dating and sales is just to meet people, try to get to know them, and put your best foot forward", you'd probably agree with it. But that's literally the same thing as "leveraging common skills for making friends into skills for developing a aquaintance level relationship". I just find, personally, that with the latter language it's easier to understand the underlying mechanics.
I'm guessing there is a lot of things you don't understand about women.
Probably. Never claimed to the expert on women. I don't understand how that's germane to this discussion though.
this reveals a lot more about you than I'd like to know. Stop being selfish in bed men.
Not sure how that disproves my point. Note how nobody has ever talked about women being selfish in bed as a problem. And no, it's not because women are inherently better or more generous at sex.
You've already come up with several half baked solutions your last one was "women need to get better at orgasms because men are bad at sex."
No, actually I didn't. I've been careful this whole time to point out that I don't actually hold any answers. I'm just pointing out that people get irritated by those who DO claim to know the answers, but clearly don't.
Mhmm but you're kind of ignoring why it was spread and created in the first place.
I'm not ignoring it. What I'm attempting to get you to see is that socialization isn't purely a result of the patriarchy in such a way that getting rid of the patriarchal structures instantly changes socialization in the way you want. It's much more complex than that, and often the way we are socialized either is a result of counter-balancing forces, or has nothing at all do with reinforcing male dominance.
Which means that just removing the patriarchy could easily not do anything at all, or even result in adverse effects as a system intended to work counter to patriarchal thought now runs unchecked. It's variable and depends on the issue being considered, and exactly what change we are proposing to society. Which is why I keep saying that you can't just say "end the patriarchy" like it's a magic tool to fix all problems.
I'll bet that when in a dinner party if prompted, you'd say the same exact same things about how "ending the patriarchy" is the solution to dating issues men having with having to initiate.
Nah it'd depend on who I was talking to and how well versed they were in feminist stuff. More in depth ideas are much easier to be discussed with words than text. With you you're more... unique. Also lol at dinner party
'm fairly certain you're the one who doesn't understand either fully if you really can't see the connection.
The connection pretty much ends at "charisma is helpful in both" however the core thing about sales that will fuck you over majorly in anything not called tinder is emotional manipulation has a tendency to fuck you over long term in relationships. Human beings don't tend to form long lasting bonds with the person that sold them their car you dork.
Probably. Never claimed to the expert on women. I don't understand how that's germane to this discussion though.
You don't understand how your ignorance on half the population on earth is a germane on a conversation about gender issues.
I think we're done here then.
No, actually I didn't. I've been careful this whole time to point out that I don't actually hold any answers.
Well you haven't you at one point said a gestalt entity of women were responsible for these problems which is very funny.
What I'm attempting to get you to see is that socialization isn't purely a result of the patriarchy
But you haven't really at all? Your smoking gun was "women did a thing" which you seem to be acknowledging right here that they did because of a patriarchal society they lived under. Like you understand that if you live in a society that encourages or forces women to be a way a woman being that way doesn't suddenly mean it's not a result of the society right?
You really just seem to be obsessed with whataboutisms.
Which is why I keep saying that you can't just say "end the patriarchy" like it's a magic tool to fix all problems.
You treat the idea of not living in a patriarchal society as a thing you would do to fix flirting. I dunno how complicated your dating life is but like no that's not the reason to get rid of it.
I know that. My point is, if we're talking about flirting and issues with it, and you acknowledge that fixing those issues isn't really a good reason to change our society to less patriarchal model, don't claim that it is.
Again, YOU were the one who brought it up as the solution. The connection being made is entirely your own, and my whole and entire this whole time is pointing out that it's a shitty connection that is way overused.
My entire thesis to you has never been that if you got rid of it dating would be a solved game for a good chunk of the population they'd probably never notice the changes. But for people that ARE negatively effected by it (some men don't want to be the ones to take charge and some women do) this would positively effect their dating.
And maybe in a different context, that might be an interesting conversation. In THIS context though, which is entirely and singularly focused on dudes complaining about women not appreciating the effort and difficulty in initiating flirting, it's not appropriate.
I know that. My point is, if we're talking about flirting and issues with it, and you acknowledge that fixing those issues isn't really a good reason to change our society to less patriarchal model, don't claim that it is.
The insane approach is to just randomly blame "the patriarchy" for this and insist that if we just get rid of the patriarchy, everything will be ok.
To which I said "That's not my point at all" You've been arguing with yourself for most of the time and while it's pretty funny I feel like I should put a stop to it.
Like dude. My second response to you was pointing out that you were arguing with your own strawman.
And maybe in a different context, that might be an interesting conversation. In THIS context though, which is entirely and singularly focused on dudes complaining about women not appreciating the effort and difficulty in initiating flirting, it's not appropriate.
Like you understand that you were the one who injected yourself into that conversation right. My initial point to him was that feminism very easily acknowledges the patriarchy damages men too and that some men feeling like they are forced to be the ones to shoulder the emotional burden of rejection else they are spineless and non men like IS something that is created and fostered by the patriarchy.
It may not be the point you intend to make. But it is the point that you keep arguing. It's really not this difficult. If you agree that "ending the patriarchy" isn't the solution to every problem, then you don't need to defend it.
Like you understand that you were the one who injected yourself into that conversation right.
Lol no. Pretty sure my read on his point is the correct one.
My initial point to him was that feminism very easily acknowledges the patriarchy damages men too
See? This shit? This is what i'm talking about right here. It's like you can't just acknowledge that maybe feminism isn't the answer.
that some men feeling like they are forced to be the ones to shoulder the emotional burden of rejection else they are spineless and non men like IS something that is created and fostered by our patriarchal society.
The point you think he was trying to make and the point he was actually making are two very different things.
You seem to be trying to argue the point that feminism helps men who want to be passive in their interactions and much more like women in that regard. Which, sure, that's probably true. But it's not actually the point that either the guy you responded to, or me, or most of the other people disagreeing with you in this thread are speaking to. Do you understand that?
The basic tenet that might help you understand is this. Do you think the guy you responded to, in any way, seems like the kind of guy who wants to be more feminine? If not, then your point is hilariously misdirected.
It may not be the point you intend to make. But it is the point that you keep arguing. It's really not this difficult. If you agree that "ending the patriarchy" isn't the solution to every problem, then you don't need to defend it.
No but I do need to keep arguing that "this is not the point I am making" with you every six sentences because you keep saying it is my point.
See? This shit? This is what i'm talking about right here. It's like you can't just acknowledge that maybe feminism isn't the answer to this one specific issue.
That was the fucking original topic of discussion that you were responding to you dunce.
But it's not actually the point that either the guy you responded to, or me, or most of the other people disagreeing with you in this thread are speaking to. Do you understand that?
That's what the fucking topic he was responding to about. If his point isn't related to that it's a non sequitur so who gives a shit?
Do you think the guy you responded to, in any way, seems like the kind of guy who wants to be more feminine?
???? I don't really care but I assume he cares about this.
An interesting, but inadvertent admission that men have been shouldering most of the "emotional burden" for centuries.
Which was what the conversation was about.
Is this where you admit that you didn't read the conversation before stepping into it?
That was the original topic of discussion that you were responding to you dunce.
No, it very much wasn't. Hell, I can solve this real quick. Let's get /u/SmurfPrivilege in here to settle this.
Is this where you admit that you didn't read the conversation before stepping into it? Should I get flash cards so you can understand this? Because from here it looks like you're upset that you didn't want to talk about the original conversation and wanted to have your own special slap fight.
Hey /u/SmurfPrivilege, can you settle this argument for me. Are you sad that you aren't, as a man, allowed to be more feminine? Would you like society to stop pressuring you to be manly and take the initiative in talking to girls?
Or, as any sane person with a modicum of reading ability would understand, was your point that it's hard for anyone to initiate conversation with a stranger. And that difficulty is made harder by women labelling otherwise innocent attempts by men to do so as "harassment".
See, nobody gives a shit about whatever you guys were talking in Ghazi. Here, right now, this conversation is about what /u/SmurfPrivilege was complaining about. Which sure as shit wasn't what you seem to think it is.
See, /u/Sareed, nobody gives a shit about whatever you guys were talking in Ghazi. Here, right now, this conversation is about what /u/SmurfPrivilege was complaining about. Which sure as shit wasn't what you seem to think it is.
He was directly quoting the thing that was on Ghazi as his first response!
Hey /u/SmurfPrivilege, can you settle this argument for me. Are you sad that you aren't, as a man, allowed to be more feminine? Would you like society to stop pressuring you to be manly and take the initiative in talking to girls?
You know how I said I don't really know or care if it's personally about him but I assume he feels that some men are foisted into the emotional burden of rejection.
And that difficulty is made harder by women labelling otherwise innocent attempts by men to do so as "harassment".
Hey, did you read Smurf's reply? It might help you understand a few things.
Hell you weren't even talking about this.
Me? No I wasn't. Smurf sure as shit was though. I thought that was obvious, and only now did i realize how badly you've misunderstood this entire conversation.
What I've been talking about is that it's not a great idea for people like you respond to complaints like that by talking about how great feminism is. And how "ending the patriarchy" will solve the problem. It's like no matter what the actual complaint, if it's gender related, someone like you will feel the need to chime in about how feminism can totally solve it. Which is incredibly unhelpful when applied to a large subset of the things men, in general, feel the need to complain about.
Hey, did you read Smurf's reply? It might help you understand a few things.
Yeah I assumed his initial argument had any sort of merit apparently he just wanted to make some MRA non-sequitur shrug my bad.
What I've been talking about is that it's not a great idea for people like you to respond to complaints like that by talking about how great feminism is.
The problem with this statement is Smurfys original point isn't really what I was getting at. Since apparently he's just mad that women don't have to worry about sexually harassing men in flirting and that it's impossible for a man to know when he's sexually harassing a women.
Ironically however if his chief point is the double standards of society not expecting women to be the harassers there might be a reason for that... well I guess before I trigger you I'll ask a question. Why do you think that might be? Is it feminism's fault?
That's just not really a logical point. I somehow managed to have sex with different partners and eventually marry without ever being accused of sexually harassing a woman.
Yeah I assumed his initial argument had any sort of merit apparently he just wanted to make some MRA non-sequitur shrug my bad.
It generally helps to actually try to understand things from someone else's point of view instead of instantly dismissing it.
The problem with this statement is Smurfys original point isn't really what I was getting at.
And MY point is, if you aren't going to respond to the things people are actually concerned about, why are you responding at all? Again, this is an incredibly common situation. Where a guy complains about an issue relevant or concerned to him, and instead of thinking about and discussing that issue, someone rolls in to talk about feminism and how it can solve the problem. Even when it really, really, isn't the right solution for that problem.
Since apparently he's just mad that women don't have to worry about sexually harassing men in flirting and that it's impossible for a man to know when he's sexually harassing a women.
Still not what he's talking about. Getting closer though.
Ironically however if his chief point is the double standards of society not expecting women to be the harassers there might be a reason for that... well I guess before I trigger you I'll ask a question. Why do you think that might be? Is it feminism's fault?
That's not really his point though. Let me restate his point again:
It's hard for anyone to initiate conversation with a stranger. And that difficulty is made harder by women labelling otherwise innocent attempts by men to do so as "harassment".
And yeah, one could say that is feminism's fault. Or more specifically, overreach and over-correction by some feminists.
I somehow managed to have sex with different partners and eventually marry without ever being accused of sexually harassing a woman.
Just because you personally are not concerned about an issue doesn't really mean it doesn't exist. Or that anyone who might be genuinely concerned about it is an idiot.
Again, I'm not arguing his point of view. I think the subject as a whole is complicated and there are reasons for the various sides and differing perspectives that people have.
What I am arguing though, is that people like you really need to learn to think about the issue presented, and not just respond all the goddamn time with the same rote answer. Especially when, like here, it's manifestly the WRONG answer.
It generally helps to actually try to understand things from someone else's point of view instead of instantly dismissing it.
You understand there are certain point's of views you can dismiss such as those that are arguing in bad faith or those based on entirely incorrect facts? ANd like. A whole bunch more.
And MY point is, if you aren't going to respond to the things people are actually concerned about, why are you responding at all?
My point is that I constructed that argument assuming his point was something that wasn't a MRA side tangent entirely unrelated to what the article was about.
Still not what he's talking about. Getting closer though.
A large part of his point is about double standards. And if he's not really making that point then there's really nowhere to go. The solution to that is make women less afraid of being taken advantage of and well that's a hard argument to make.
And yeah, one could say that is feminism's fault. Or more specifically, overreach and over-correction by some feminists.
Uhh. Wait. In what way? Here's an honest question does a man have the right to talk to a woman who doesn't want to talk to him?
If he doesn't than I'd assume the upset doesn't come from being told to stop harassing the woman and the consequences that come from being called a harasser.
The second problem definitely isn't feminism's fault.
Just because you personally are not concerned about an issue doesn't really mean it doesn't exist. Or that anyone who might be genuinely concerned about it is an idiot.
It's more about the people who are concerned about being labeled a harasser more often than not are harassers. Like call out culture is becoming a gigantic problem but you have social media giants to thank for that and not feminism.
Do feminists utilize call out culture absolutely. Is it entirely hypocritical to complain about this while on a call out subreddit also true.
I think Harvey Weinstein is a monster who deserves jail time for what he did. But the dude who got publicly shamed for inviting a girl up to his hotel room for coffee is a victim of slander, imo.
That second sentence is a pretty clear example of the sort of overreach he's talking about.
I'd assume the upset doesn't come from being told to stop harassing the woman and the consequences that come from being called a harasser.
No, the upset comes from being told no, stopping, and being labelled a harasser anyway.
For fuck's sake, the whole issue here is that harassment used to mean a repeated pattern of unwanted sexual advances. But lately, it feels like there's a concerted attempt to redefine it to eliminate the need for a pattern at all, and instead merely making someone uncomfortable, even with a single unwanted advance. And the issue that people have is that until you've actually made it, it's not really possible to know whether an advance is unwanted or not. Ideally, you try, it fails, you move on, everyone is ok. What's not ideal is: he tries, it fails, he moves on, weeks later he's getting 'called out' on social media.
And the people arguing for that redefinition are most definitely feminists.
It's more about the people who are concerned about being labeled a harasser more often than not are harassers.
No. Just, no. There is something inherently wrong with saying "well, if you're worried about being accused, you're probably guilty anyway". And I really shouldn't have to explain why.
Like call out culture is becoming a gigantic problem but you have social media giants to thank for that and not feminism.
Yeah, no. That's not how this works. Feminists (some, not all) are the ones doing this specific thing. So yeah, they are the ones to look at as the reason for it happening.
Do feminists utilize call out culture absolutely. Is it entirely hypocritical to complain about this while on a call out subreddit also true.
Brah, /r/drama is not a call out subreddit. Jesus, do you not know where you are?
That second sentence is a pretty clear example of the sort of overreach he's talking about.
Which he literally never actually talks about!
No, the upset comes from being told no, stopping, and being labelled a harasser anyway.
If the upset isn't from the consequences why else would you care about being labeled a harasser?
For fuck's sake, the whole issue here is that harassment used to mean a repeated pattern of unwanted sexual advances.
Wait.... you think sexual harassment has to be repeated to be harassment? Sure you don't want to rephrase that point cause its kinda wrong.
No. Just, no. There is something inherently wrong with saying "well, if you're worried about being accused, you're probably guilty anyway". And I really shouldn't have to explain why.
No it's more in a society where we don't have a whole lot of men falsely accused of harassment or sexual assault compared to the number of men who do harass or sexually assault so it often appears to be a little disingenuous.
There are most certainly edge cases who have been falsely accused but there seems to be a disproportionate concern by a lot of the "What about being falsely accused!" crowd about being falsely accused and the fact that there's also a whole bunch who aren't and never get caught.
Yeah, no. That's not how this works. Feminists (some, not all) are the ones doing this specific thing. So yeah, they are the ones to look at as the reason for it happening.
The reason it's happening is it's an effective tactic. Is that feminists (some not all) fault too?
Brah, /r/drama is not a call out subreddit. Jesus, do you not know where you are?
Hey /u/SmurfPrivilege, can you settle this argument for me. Are you sad that you aren't, as a man, allowed to be more feminine? Would you like society to stop pressuring you to be manly and take the initiative in talking to girls?
Or, as any sane person with a modicum of reading ability would understand, was your point that it's hard for anyone to initiate conversation with a stranger. And that difficulty is made harder by women labelling otherwise innocent attempts by men to do so as "harassment".
Che is correct. My point was that different feminists are setting conflicting rules and throwing the word "harassment" at anyone who doesn't abide by their personal courtship preferences.
I'd like to see more women make the initial approach so that they can understand the impossibility of knowing ahead of time whether the advance is "unwelcome" and at the same time anticipating if the other person will feel uncomfortable.
I think Harvey Weinstein is a monster who deserves jail time for what he did. But the dude who got publicly shamed for inviting a girl up to his hotel room for coffee is a victim of slander, imo. I'm apparently a pretty decent-looking guy and if I applied the same standards to the women who have expressed an interest in me, there's about four different women who deserve to lose their jobs this year for making unwelcome advances.
I'd like to see more women make the initial approach so that they can understand the impossibility of knowing ahead of time whether the advance is "unwelcome" while at the same time, anticipating if the other person will feel uncomfortable.
Hmm. Lemme give you some dating tips. Can the woman easily leave? Go for it if she doesn't want to talk just leave her be. I have solved your impossible task.
Che is correct. My point was that different feminists are setting conflicting rules and throwing the word "harassment" at anyone who doesn't abide by their personal courtship preferences.
Can you name me some prominent feminists who would disagree with my very ancient impossible guide?
But the dude who got publicly shamed for inviting a girl up to his hotel room for coffee is a victim of slander, imo.
Who?
Additionally, I don't really mind the pressure to be "manly". I think learning to control my emotions and work a problem logically is a useful skill.
Incel detected. I'm sorry for the loss of your subreddit.
Incel detected. I'm sorry for the loss of your subreddit.
Holy shit, is this really the level of your discourse? Is this what you do all day..argue feverishly with trolls and channers about gender issues?
Here's what I've experienced as a man who hasn't bothered to approach women in the last few years:
raped by a woman who was furious when I turned her down
targeted by numerous heavier-set women who took advantage of my lowered inhibitions when I was drunk/high
had women use my professional contact info to ask me out
had a woman corner me in my cubicle to ask me out
had women comment on my appearance in the workplace
had women use physical touching to flirt with me
had women tell raunchy jokes and then mock me for what they perceived as discomfort on my part
had a woman bite me and get rough with me despite me saying "no" multiple times
had a woman waiting for me outside my place of work to ask me out
same woman showed up to my apartment unannounced, claiming she happened to be in the neighborhood
had a woman send unsolicited nudes with explicitly sexual messages
Let's focus on that last one, because this was ongoing as recently as late summer of this year. This girl is 20-22 y.o., has a strained relationship with her parents, and few friends. She suffers from low self-esteem and had just gotten out of a physically/psychologically abusive relationship. She reached out to me because I treated her kindly (as I do with all women) and she found me attractive.
Here's an example of things I would be justified in doing according to feminists:
mock her physical appearance
contact her employer to get her fired
put her on blast on social media for sexual harassment
file charges for harassment
Instead, I politely declined her offers and explained to her that she didn't need to do these things to get a man's attention.
Holy shit, is this really the level of your discourse? Is this what you do all day..argue feverishly with trolls and channers about gender issues?
No I post in r/drama all day.
Here's an example of things I would be justified in doing according to some feminists:
mock her physical appearance
citation needed
post her nudes on public forums
citation needed
contact her employer to get her fired
Depends. Did you feel harassed by her?
put her on blast on social media for sexual harassment
Wait hold on.... you do that. You post here on reddit in a subreddit called r/Drama.
file formal charges for harassment
Did you feel harassed?
Instead, I politely declined her offers and explained to her that she didn't need to do these things to get a man's attention.
So your argument is a woman who gets sent dick pics should just nod their head because the person on the other end might just want aattention from women?
What the fuck is up with this womansplaining about what I shouldn't be doing around women. I don't do any of this. Isn't that textbook womansplaining?
I'm talking about women's behavior and clarifying with you that this behavior is unacceptable.
Did you feel harassed?
Is that the test? You can take a shot with one of these approaches and if the victim doesn't feel "harassed", you can keep doing these things? You're not a harasser unless someone has filed a formal complaint? Are you serious!?
The issue of whether I feel "harassed" depends on how it is defined. My previous understanding is that it requires persistent behavior and disregard for the victim's attempts to put a stop to it. But now, the standard seems to be met by a single incident in which one is made uncomfortable. By that standard, I definitely feel "harassed". It was uncomfortable, and in a few of those instances described, I didn't have the option to leave. Instead, I had to de-escalate the situation and attempted to do so with minimal damage to the woman's pride.
I made no argument about dick pics. I'm relating my lived experience and you're attempting to use it as fodder to work out your hostility towards anyone who sheds light on abhorrent behavior of women.
What the fuck is up with this womansplaining about what I shouldn't be doing around women. I don't do any of this. Isn't that textbook womansplaining?
You can't really womansplain without being a woman?
I'm talking about women's behavior and clarifying with you that this behavior is unacceptable.
Are you?
You're not a harasser unless someone has filed a formal complaint?
No?
The issue of whether I feel "harassed" depends on how it is defined.
I've got a bad feeling about this.
My previous understanding is that it requires persistent behavior and disregard for the victim's attempts to put a stop to it.
No? Like if your boss threatened to fire you unless you slept with her that's pretty obviously sexual harassment even though it's not necessarily a repeated behavior.
But now, the standard seems to be met by a single incident in which one is made uncomfortable.
When it gets into being made to feel uncomfortable then yes I'd say the standard would be repeated behavior.
Do you have an example of a woman who was only made uncomfortable by some dude once and subsequently got him in trouble for sexual harassment?
made no argument about dick pics.
You made a post about a woman who sent you unsolicited nudes... that's a pretty obvious comparison point.
You can't really womansplain without being a woman?
You're doing a pretty good job if it. Let me mansplain this concept to you.
When a man describes his personal experience and someone jumps in to re-frame it from "a woman's perspective", that's called womansplaining. The gender of the womansplainer doesn't matter. Try to educate yourself, please.
I don't think you know what a no true scotsman argument is friend.
And if that's the link you decided to go with well it's kinda disappointing. The comment is downvoted because it's a dummy playing literalism about a funny tweet.
Just so you remember, it really does take two people to make a baby. That's like elementary biology man.
Absolutely. It also takes more than two people to make most paintings (someone made the paints and canvas) who do we attribute credit to making the painting? I want you to either admit that we falsely give credit to inventors and artists or admit that you are just being weirdly defensive when it's related to kid making.
It's not even a gender thing it's a thing we do for literally everything involving a party doing the making and another supplying materials.
Again it's a common acknowledgement that a patriarchal society does negatively effect men.
Eh, no. Feminists ONLY acknowledge this when their hypocracy is called out and only as a half assed attempt to conceal the role women actively play in fucking up men’s lives. Note how they are saying “the PATRIARCYnegatively affects men” and not “women’s sense of entitlement oppresses men”. The latter is literally true in this context - women expecting/demanding that men they find attractive approach them while they simultaneously creep shame (or worse) those men who approach whom they don’t find attractive. They rarely acknowledge that men get fucked over by WOMEN: it’s always the PATRIARCHY (I.e. other men) doing it. This is not an accident.
It's not really inadvertent. It's pretty much common knowledge in feminist circles that the patriarchy damages men as well as women.
The thing I find especially interesting about this is the language used. For instance, if you mention "toxic femininity" or "internalized misandry" to a feminist who just said that sure, we all understand that the Patriarchy hurts men too, they'll be in equal parts confused and scandalized.
For the people who are supposed to be really well aware of how language shapes thought and how harmful language (such as calling bad things "gay") can lead to very real prejudice and oppression, this stuff is a gigantic blind spot.
Of course this just shows that they are right about how privileged people tend to fail at recognizing oppression and need to listen very hard to oppressed people talking from their perspectives.
Well one toxic femininity isn't really a thing that exists. From a societal perspective femininity is rarely treated as a good thing in men, and in women femininity means being docile and servile. While that can have negative aspects it doesn't really cause the systemic abuse that toxic masculinity does.
Often times you will find feminists who dislike that term as it's primarily used to draw false equivalencies.
Toxic masculinity refers among other things to the aspects of masculinity that hurt men themselves (like refusing help, suppressing emotions, prioritizing work over family, and so on).
100% and then more of what is usually called "internalized misogyny" could be similarly called "toxic femininity". Being docile and servile, avoiding traditionally male occupations, slut-shaming other women, all that stuff.
My point is that you'll never ever hear any feminist doing that, using the term "toxic femininity", because when it's about them it's suddenly really obvious how it has denigrating and hostile connotations against all femininity, will be used to dismiss all those problems (it's your own fault for adopting toxic femininity, deal with it yourself), and so on.
And conversely, they will never talk about "internalized misandry" because it actually earnestly implies that patriarchal society hurts most men too and genuinely calls for addressing that on the societal level.
And as I said what adds insult to injury is that it comes from the people who tell us that we shouldn't use the word "dumb" because it still has lingering connotations that might increase prejudice against deaf people. I mean hard of hearing, sorry.
Toxic masculinity refers among other things to the aspects of masculinity that hurt men themselves (like refusing help, suppressing emotions, prioritizing work over family, and so on).
This is just my personal opinion (and I'd agree that the terms are used unfairly alot), but I believe it's not just aspects of masculinity that hurt men themselves that makes it toxic masculinity, but aspects that are generally considered a positive thing but become unhealthy in extremes.
As in, the idea the men are strong and unemotional you wouldn't describe as misandrist. That's usually considered a positive aspect of masculinity. But the examples you provided are taking those aspects to a level where it becomes toxic.
Something that would be internalized misandry would be stuff like how men are generally considered more "disposable", there's generally has less concern for the safety and well being of men when compared to women.
Some things can be either or - for example women avoiding male professions could be from toxic femininity (believing themselves to be above work for men) or internalized misogyny (believing themselves to not be capable of work for men, learned helplessness)
Basically, the tldr is that toxic gender roles are harm to yourself caused by trying to reach gender role ideals, while internalized misandry/misogyny is contempt, hatred, or prejudice for your own gender.
I'd agree with this distinction if I ever see feminists using the other respective term to talk about that kind of issues. Until toxic is only ever masculinity and internalized is only ever misogyny it's kinda pointless to say that well, maybe sometimes it would be actually more precise to describe something as toxic masculinity rather than internalized misandry. Maybe it would, but nobody does the other thing anyways.
Also I want to point out up front that I'm not being upset with "tumblr feminists" here and unfairly generalizing, that's what literally all feminists do. Like I'm pretty sure that you will be unable to find a single feminist talking about "toxic femininity".
Toxic masculinity refers among other things to the aspects of masculinity that hurt men themselves (like refusing help, suppressing emotions, prioritizing work over family, and so on).
That's partially true but it's not really that specific it's any element of masculinity that cause detrimental effects. It's not primarily things masculinity that hurts men or women it's all of it.
100% and then more of what is usually called "internalized misogyny" could be similarly called "toxic femininity". Being docile and servile, avoiding traditionally male occupations, slut-shaming other women, all that stuff.
Agree with the former but the other two are hard to agree with since we have a society that specifically tells women to avoid those careers and slut shaming is not something done by one gender but it is something done to one gender.
My point is that you'll never ever hear any feminist doing that, using the term "toxic femininity", because when it's about them it's suddenly really obvious how it has denigrating and hostile connotations against all femininity, will be used to dismiss all those problems (it's your own fault for adopting toxic femininity, deal with it yourself), and so on.
I mean I think that's being a bit disingenuous by the very nature that it is a word with a modifier to it "toxic" it is stating that not all of the thing is bad.
And conversely, they will never talk about "internalized misandry" because it actually earnestly implies that patriarchal society hurts most men too and genuinely calls for addressing that on the societal level.
You haven't had many conversation with non tumblr stereotype feminists then because this is a frequent topic of discussion.
And as I said what adds insult to injury is that it comes from the people who tell us that we shouldn't use the word "dumb" because it still has lingering connotations that might increase prejudice against deaf people. I mean hard of hearing, sorry.
You didn't actually address my point. Look, here's a challenge: get one of those browser plugins that can replace arbitrary words with other words (like "SJWs" with "skeletons") and set it up to replace "internalized misogyny" with "toxic femininity" and "toxic masculinity" with "internalized misandry", then go read your favorite feminist websites and see how you like it.
And as I said what adds insult to injury is that it comes from the people who tell us that we shouldn't use the word "dumb" because it still has lingering connotations that might increase prejudice against deaf people. I mean hard of hearing, sorry.
Which is purely about tumblr idiots making a dumb point.
Look, here's a challenge: get one of those browser plugins that can replace arbitrary words with other words (like "SJWs" with "skeletons") and set it up to replace "internalized misogyny" with "toxic femininity" and "toxic masculinity" with "internalized misandry", then go read your favorite feminist websites and see how you like it.
Replacing toxic masculinity with internalized misandry would be like replacing all usages of the word rectangle with square. A lot of the time it'll be technically accurate but a lot of the time it will be wrong.
Which is purely about tumblr idiots making a dumb point.
OK do you think that avoiding calling bad things "gay", or unpleasant people "faggots" is tumblr idiocy as well?
Replacing toxic masculinity with internalized misandry would be like replacing all usages of the word rectangle with square. A lot of the time it'll be technically accurate but a lot of the time it will be wrong.
How so? And how so replacing "toxic femininity" with "internalized misogyny" is not similarly wrong a lot of the time?
I don't do either calling bad things gay is mostly eyerolling and the second one is a slur that I'm less fond of.
Can you please try to keep track of the discussion? I'm saying that feminists tend to pay a lot of attention to the way our use of words subtly shapes our thoughts, correctly IMO in case of avoiding "gay" and "faggot" as slurs for example. Which makes the way they talk about "toxic masculinity" without a second thought all that more aggravating.
I edited in an explanation after but it's because you'd be using a specific part of toxic masculinity to replace the general concept. Same for toxic femininity
This would be a lot more convincing argument if we lived in a world where feminists used all four terms now and then. As long as toxic is only ever masculinity and internalized is only ever misogyny it's kinda pointless if not outright disingenuous to say that well, maybe sometimes it would be actually more precise to describe something as toxic masculinity rather than internalized misandry.
Can you please try to keep track of the discussion?
You asked the question.
Which makes the way they talk about "toxic masculinity" without a second thought all that more aggravating.
In what ways do they talk about toxic masculinity in a way that is similar to someone using a slur?
This would be a lot more convincing argument if we lived in a world where feminists used all four terms now and then. As long as toxic is only ever masculinity and internalized is only ever misogyny it's kinda pointless if not outright disingenuous to say that well, maybe sometimes it would be actually more precise to describe something as toxic masculinity rather than internalized misandry.
I stated why toxic femininity isn't really used. Can you give the examples of stereotypical feminine traits that are used toxically?
In what ways do they talk about toxic masculinity in a way that is similar to someone using a slur?
In the same way that causes most feminists to react like a cat thrown into a bathtube when they hear the words "toxic femininity". I've already explained why it's (rightfully) perceived as problematic in my first or second comment in this thread.
I stated why toxic femininity isn't really used. Can you give the examples of stereotypical feminine traits that are used toxically?
100% and then more of what is usually called "internalized misogyny" could be similarly called "toxic femininity". Being docile and servile, avoiding traditionally male occupations, slut-shaming other women, all that stuff.
Agree with the former but the other two are hard to agree with since we have a society that specifically tells women to avoid those careers and slut shaming is not something done by one gender but it is something done to one gender.
2 - the decision to apply to women's studies rather than to software engineering is that woman and hers alone. It's the society's fault that she believes herself not up to par, but it's exactly the same as it's the society's fault that a man believes that he should rather drink himself to sleep every night than to seek psychological help. That's the same and the end result is the same: a toxic belief that's harmful to the carrier.
3 - what's your objection, slut-shaming other women is something that women do, because the society tells them to, and which ends up being harmful for women in general and often to themselves as well.
Who else slut-shames women and who else doesn't get slut-shamed is completely irrelevant. ACTUALLY! The only reason you think that that's valid objections is because you understand perfectly well that "toxic gender-inity" is a rhetorical weapon that says "you people suck", and that's why you respond to it with irrelevant "no, you people suck".
In the same way that causes most feminists to react like a cat thrown into a bathtub when they hear the words "toxic femininity".
THat really doesn't answer my question unless you're just stating you were drawing a false equivalency on purpose.
ACTUALLY! The only reason you think that that's valid objections is because you understand perfectly well that "toxic gender-inity" is a rhetorical weapon that says "you people suck", and that's why you respond to it with irrelevant "no, you people suck".
So we're back to you take toxic masculinity as an assault on all men even though it's a got a modifier right in front of the word?
THat really doesn't answer my question unless you're just stating you were drawing a false equivalency on purpose.
Are you a mobile pleb or naturally lazy and can't find the comment I explicitly directed you towards?
My point is that you'll never ever hear any feminist doing that, using the term "toxic femininity", because when it's about them it's suddenly really obvious how it has denigrating and hostile connotations against all femininity, will be used to dismiss all those problems (it's your own fault for adopting toxic femininity, deal with it yourself), and so on.
So we're back to you take toxic masculinity as an assault on all men even though it's a got a modifier right in front of the word?
Yeah of course it's going to be interpreted that way, exactly the same as any talk about "toxic femininity" will be used to attack femininity in general and all women understand it in advance and treat it as such.
As a side question do you understand why Black Lives Matter advocates are annoyed by all lives matters spam despite the fact that the second statement is true?
Well if you want to make an honest argument that the situations are the same as far as the meaning of the words goes, but different because men complaining about suicides, homelessness, substance abuse etc are privileged and deserve to be taken down a notch, unlike women who complain about unequal representation in tech who must be supported by careful use of language, then that would be at least an honest argument.
You're not making that argument, you babble about "false equivalence" but don't say what that equivalence is or why it is false.
Yeah of course it's going to be interpreted that way, exactly the same as any talk about "toxic femininity" will be used to attack femininity in general and all women understand it in advance and treat it as such.
Saying man I really hate shitty cars is not saying all cars are shitty and therefore I hate all cars. I have never taken the word toxic masculinity as an assault on my personal state as a male.
Again I ask if you understand why Black Lives Matter advocates are annoyed by all lives matters spam despite the fact that the second statement is true?
Saying man I really hate shitty cars is not saying all cars are shitty and therefore I hate all cars. I have never taken the word toxic masculinity as an assault on my personal state as a male.
Are you on the spectrum or pretending for the sake of convenience?
Again, imagine a MRA talking about "toxic femininity". Is there any doubt in your mind that he reserves the right to decide which parts of femininity are toxic to himself, is going to use that to throw shade on femininity and women as a whole, and so on? And yeah, he will also tell you "but I specifically said that I don't mean all femininity" with a shit-eating grin that somehow permeates into his computer screen, gets transferred through the series of internet tubes, and almost visibly exudes from your screen.
It's exactly the same when a feminist does that.
Again I ask if you understand why Black Lives Matter advocates are annoyed by all lives matters spam despite the fact that the second statement is true?
Because black people are disadvantaged, so it's important to have a catchy phrase to rally around. A phrase that doesn't exclude anyone else, too, just that it seems that the society doesn't put much value on black lives in particular, so that must be corrected.
Again, if you want to apply this to the difference in describing things as "toxic gender-inity" vs "internalized miso-gendery", be my guest, that would be at least honest.
Don't give me disingenuous shit about how those two ways of speaking are actually the same or something.
slut shaming is not something done by one gender but it is something done to one gender
Slut shaming might be done to women, but in the only sociological study of "slut shaming" I found, the authors actually discovered that slut shaming was something done by WOMEN to other women.
Slut shaming might be done to women, but in the only sociological study of "slut shaming" I found, the authors actually discovered that slut shaming was something done by WOMEN to other women.
Uhh.. The study of course found that women were slut shaming as they used a study of fifty women.
but you'll notice the massive fucking feminist blind spot when women do it to other women.
No, they talk about slut shaming as done by men. Very little attention is paid (in relative terms) to the much more common issue of women slut shaming other women.
No, they talk about slut shaming as done by men. Very little attention is paid (in relative terms) to the much more common issue of women slut shaming other women.
The only time slut shaming done by men is talked about more in feminist circles than slut shaming done by women is when sexual assault topics are discussed. I'm not sure what feminists you're talking to but your point is flat out not true.
Up until 1993 the majority opinion of the double standard was that it revealed men's preference for control over female sexuality. Then this bomb landed. In every single study that found evidence of a double standard across 177 different data sets... women supported it considerably more than men.
It was a massive oversight of the literature for decades.
Thank you Toirfam. This stuff actually aligns a lot with some other studies about male/female views on morality, men tend to be much more permissive (ie i dun give a shit) and women much more restrictive.
Masculinity isn't considered a good thing in women, but tards like you keep ranting about 'toxic masculinity'.
If toxic femininity isn't really a thing that exists, explain the following behaviors:
Women getting into arguments, then siccing their boyfriends on the person they disagree with. 'let's you and him fight'.
Women crying specifically to get their way.
Women creating overly censorious rules and regulations that they will be able to dance around easily, while saddling men with those same rules and regulations, knowing that men won't, making it easier to punish men for typically male behavior while allowing all typically female behavior to be outright rewarded.e.g., the way public schools have existed since the 'zero tolerance' era began.
Somehow, I think you'll just find a way to make that men's fault, too.
Masculinity isn't considered a good thing in women, but tards like you keep ranting about 'toxic masculinity'.
I mean society viewing masculinity a bad thing in women isn't necessarily a good thing that society does. Masculinity and toxic masculinity aren't really the same thing. There's also no need for name calling.
Women getting into arguments, then siccing their boyfriends on the person they disagree with. 'let's you and him fight'.
That requires a boyfriend that is willing to act as a foot soldier for someone else. The example doesn't really work because it's requirement is another person to do a thing of their own free will.
Women crying specifically to get their way.
See above.
Women creating overly censorious rules and regulations that they will be able to dance around easily, while saddling men with those same rules and regulations, knowing that men won't, making it easier to punish men for typically male behavior while allowing all typically female behavior to be outright rewarded.e.g., the way public schools have existed since the 'zero tolerance' era began.
May I ask for specifics of what regulations women have created and passed that you are referring to?
It’s not a blind spot. It is very deliberate. It’s “patriarchy” that occasionally inconveniences some men (but it’s toxic masculinity women suffer the most), while it’s MENS SEXUAL VIOLENCE that OPPRESSES all women all the time and women are never complicit in that.
Every romantic and/or sexual relationship must have some moment at which one partner expresses to the other that they have interests beyond the platonic. Under what conditions do you think doing so is morally acceptable / not misogynistic?
I can't believe you just replied to /u/yellowstone10 without their consent. You literally just raped them. You have been reported to the admins, enjoy your ban.
Excuse me? How are they supposed to tell you? Talking to people without their consent is sexual harrasment, you sick fuck. You have been reported to the admins for openly advocating sexual harassment. Go back to /r/incels, oh wait, you can't. Just fuck off.
There is a very literal belief on the part of many women, that women (and only women) deserve to go through life without a single moment of discomfort. That means that they must never be physically inconvenience, that they must never be pressured to do actual work, that they never suffer a social interaction they don't want to have to suffer, and that their personal point of view must always be considered 100% objective, and never questioned no matter how much it conflicts with the views of other or objective reality.
I am not trying to troll or be mean, but how do you suggest human beings ought to interact with each other? how should we say that we are attracted to someone else?
Sexual attraction will be forbidden in the coming revolution, and those who have sex will be first up against the wall. We will live only a single generation and then return to the earth as Allah (pbuh) intended. Insh'allah.
Dont you think the best possible scenario for everyone in this problem is to accept that we have a duty to communicate sometimes? Why not deal with whatever anxiety is making you be unnable to just say a polite " thanks! but i am not interested "?
I have said that, women have said that to me, everyone goes seperate sides, nobody is bothered by it as there is nothing to be bothered or be shy about. To me and to some women I have talked to it is even good, as it make you feel more confident and makes you feel better about yourself. It makes you feel more attractive too.
So seriously, where have you gotten all this negativity about flirting and sex in general?
Of course they are for real, and there are many of them in communities like ghazi, and they are one of the reasons outsiders with good faith and no desire to hurt others still reject and mock communities like Ghazi
I feel like it has been too long since you shitposted here. How could you ignore your dearest sub for this long?
Anyway, that thread is exhibit one of why I think being a online feminist in certain communities is not for the best interest of men. Especially young men who might be isolating themselves more after reading the anxiety-driven people on that thread.
u/Laurelai3301's apparent belief that it's "fragile masculinity" to disagree with the idea that women are so fragile they'll fall apart and die after a momentary social exchange is everything that ever needed to be said about that idiotic concept.
It's hardly an emotional burden when someone isn't interested in you after you've just met them. Being genuinely interested in someone's life is my way of initiating romantic interest. Better to do it that way then go in for unwanted physical contact that would make her uncomfortable or threatened.
u/myscifilullaby stop trying to dishonestly niceguy your way into women's pants, it's absolutely creepy as fuck.
/u/fuckincaillou, you're the first person I've seen with the chutzpah to keep using the "men are poisoned candies" analogy after Trump Jr. showed the world how much of a bigoted, illogical paper tiger it is. Hats off to you, 'cause you got stones, son.
Does it bother you that you're going to die alone because you couldn't work up the balls to say hi to someone? Is this why you take your frustrations out on those that aren't complete faggots?
One of the big pieces of advice is basically hit on women in social spaces like bars or parties, not safe spaces like coffee shops or the subway. Because everyone knows alcohol and hook-ups have nothing to do with rape culture, right?
What I think might be good for me are text based RP communities. I've got no driver's license, my parents work a lot, public transportation is far too difficult to figure out, and I'm not in walking distance of any social places. Anybody know about any of those?
Oh, and when I say text based, I mean text based. I don't want to have to buy a graphics card to get into this.
/u/Racecarlock when the kind of graphics card you own is a factor in the options you'll consider for a "social" life, you need professional help.
199 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-12-02
It's shit like this that makes my life worse as a Eurasian because even if you look amazing you're still a subhuman because Asian women happily marry guys who look like they've been in industrial accidents over an Asian guy. It makes Asian looking males look like the worst fucking losers on earth. The guy is absolutely offensive to look at. Like his face literally makes my stomach churl because he's so ugly. I'd even be mad if he had a white girlfriend People feel they have the liberty to say of course your dad is white. Because white guys see shit like this where some fucking quasimodo looking freak can get Asian girls and they use it as ammo as to how shittyy asian guys are...
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 EternallyMiffed 2017-12-02
The bot is omniscient
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-12-02
On the plus side these people will self-select themselves out of the gene pool.
1 rewind45 2017-12-02
Genetics aren't the on thing people spread, their could spread their memetic far enough whete flirting becomes offensive or something.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-12-02
ru ok?
1 rewind45 2017-12-02
Yes. Why you ask?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2017-12-02
Your last post was like reading a stroke
1 rewind45 2017-12-02
How so?
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-12-02
dropping the "-ly" from only and misspelling "they" is enough to make it an enormous challenge for retards to read your comment. apparently
1 TinyJibble 2017-12-02
I'm gonna spread my memetic far enough into your tight bussy.
1 rewind45 2017-12-02
There, fixed?
1 subpoutine 2017-12-02
Thanks for asking but no, I don’t post in /r/GamerGhazi.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-12-02
Insh'allah.
1 carthoris26 2017-12-02
Yeah sure then they'll make calling people the wrong gender illegal and punish it worse than knowingly spreading HIV, come on that would never happen.
1 rewind45 2017-12-02
Canada has that weird pronoun law.
1 Pepperglue 2017-12-02
Meme. The DNA of soul.
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
Don't you think idiots can breed with other idiots?
1 rewind45 2017-12-02
AI waifus. AI waifus now. NOW!
1 S994 2017-12-02
Step 1. Get venture funding for steps 2-7
Step 2. Buy access dataset semi anonymized text conversations that has participant ids and gender info.
Step 3. find male participants who have conversations with the highest number of female participants
Step 4. filter for conversations between them and female participants
Step 5. filter for conversation content before the first year between any two participants
Step 6. train neural network on this conversation and create waifu chat bot.
Step 7. Release beta product where lonely betas can pay $100 a month (cheaper than a real girlfriend for them) to chat with your waifu bot.
Step 8. Go out of business a month later when Bezos decides to eat your lunch like it did BlueApron's and launches "Date Alexa"
1 giroth 2017-12-02
I dunno, I heard Alexa was a real slut
1 The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-12-02
1 comebepc 2017-12-02
Exactly
1 WorldStarCroCop 2017-12-02
fuck u for piggybacking a top comment
btw upvote me for pointing that out
1 Elite_AI 2017-12-02
upvoted for pregnant anne frank waifu
1 an_experimenter 2017-12-02
you like the ashkenazi iq and khazar milkers?
1 Ultrashitpost 2017-12-02
https://goodmenproject.com/author/harris-o-malley/
10 bucks says this guy has molested someone
1 DrinkProfessionally 2017-12-02
1 FAstowaway 2017-12-02
Nerdlove is a hack and a snake, he's definitely sexually assaulted someone at some point
1 TheButtholeOfBravery 2017-12-02
What makes you say that?
1 oshnyve 2017-12-02
I vaguely remember there being some drama associated with the good men project and the proto Male Feminist hugo schwyzer years ago but I'm too drunk and old to recall what it was. I feel like /u/snallygaster would though
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
Hugo Schwyzer fucked his students when he was a professor. https://studentactivism.net/2013/09/05/hugo-schwyzer-was-sleeping-with-his-students-all-along/
1 oshnyve 2017-12-02
ah yes, that good drama
1 Country-asshole 2017-12-02
Wait a second, Stop. What’s wrong with fucking your students if they’re adults?
1 WE_ARE_THE_MODS 2017-12-02
He's in a position of power and authority over them.
1 DrinkProfessionally 2017-12-02
Not that big of an authority I would say
Nah I dont quite agree that that directly translate to abuse.
1 WE_ARE_THE_MODS 2017-12-02
Pick the weakest girl, isolate her, tell her if she doesn't have sex with you, you'll fail her. Ez gaem.
1 Country-asshole 2017-12-02
No, he is their prof. He is not their boss or parole officer. He literally has no power over them. All he can do is give them a bad mark - which is subject to appeal.
1 InternetLawyerESQ 2017-12-02
This thread is precisely why Reddit fucking sucks so god damn fucking much when it comes to exactly what they’re preaching, which is nuance. It’s fucking infuriating hat the position of this thread is “she’s right but because of a lack of nuance she’s gonna get discredited”. Fuck that. Fuck you. You don’t fucking get it. It’s like saying “all lives matter”. Yeah. You’re technically right. But YOURE the one saying fuck you to nuance when THIS is the argument you’re upvoting and perpetrating. No shit women should be proactive. No shit there are things they can do. But Fuck this goddamn normalizing of abusive men in power. This “well there’s always gonna be creeps so you gotta” FUCKING WHY?!?! WHY DOES THERE ALWAYS GONNA BE CREEPS?!?!
And to be blunt. It’s exactly what you said. It’s men. It’s fucking young men on Reddit. Having been taught that the world is their oyster but they aren’t President so they’re oppressed. Believing that liking Star Wars and nerdy things is the same backlash as being black w/r/t ostracization.
I was waiting. I knew it was starting with the countless “well Corey Feldman, well Terry Crewes” comments whenever anyone talks about the women suffering. Let’s be real. It was only a matter of time before Reddit made this a “well let’s think about how women are ALSO responsible and to blame for this shit”. Before it became a “well we gotta frame this in a way where we don’t have to actively accept that there are fundamental things men and men in power gotta change and need to try to make a better effort to call out in my fellow man poor behavior to fundamentally pivot from the perverse shithole we’re in”.
Reddit: every thread screams about logic being king, and it’s never used in a way that seems to benefit women hmmmmmmmmmmmm weeeeeiiiiiirrrrrd This thread makes me want to puke and makes me completely and utterly pessimistic with regard to thinking ANYTHING is going to actually change in our culture. Also why the FUCK are we listening to Pam Anderson talk about anything when there’s literal sociological studies that show why victims of abuse act in ways simple minded 90s porn actresses might not have the best grasp on.
1 S994 2017-12-02
where is this comment originally from
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
pam anderson pasta
1 S994 2017-12-02
on point
1 point_shaver 2017-12-02
N U A N C E U U A A N N C C E E
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2017-12-02
This, unironically.
1 TherapyFortheRapy 2017-12-02
Reddit sucks because it's full of 19-year-olds who think they know better than everyone else about everything. Made worse by the fact that this particular bunch of 19 year olds is all autistic, depressed, ridden with social anxiety or otherwise mentally damaged.
1 TinyJibble 2017-12-02
I'm surprised to see the crazies getting downvoted. Is Ghazi going altright?
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
They're eating their own, as usual. I wonder how much infighting happens compared to fighting with people they're all united against?
There's probably a lot more infighting, seeing that the sub got angry about one of their own talking to some right-wingers.
1 satanismyhomeboy 2017-12-02
It was linked to srss as well
They have a 'fuck it we're doing it too' attitude and downvote like crazy
1 allwordsaredust 2017-12-02
Holy fuck that thread. I knew ghazi was bad, but not this far gone.
I hope this is a wake up call for some of the saner people in that place about the company they keep.
Literally approaching a woman is harassment? How do these people function? And they expect everyone to abide by these rules? How long has it been since they talked to someone outside their echo chamber, because it seems they have no grasp whatsoever of normal human interaction.
1 Why_We_Need_Islam 2017-12-02
1 wokeaspie 2017-12-02
Ghazi/menslib-approved guide for expressing sexual interest:
1 Country-asshole 2017-12-02
Excuse me you shitlord - she never consented to you asking her for her consent! That’s literally “asking for consent rape”.
1 alexmikli 2017-12-02
This is gamerghazi. They have to have some ridiculous notions on what harassment is to still be thinking gamergate is some sort of international organized harassment cabal.
1 80BAIT08 2017-12-02
I don't think this person has a problem with being hit on.
1 MilitaryBees 2017-12-02
No, I said it multiple times. I genuinely don't want to be bothered. It's not my place to police other people (despite getting snarky in that thread) but I want to be left alone.
1 80BAIT08 2017-12-02
Um... blinks
Y-y-you don't looks at the ground
you don't have to worry about being bothered.
maybe if yoooooou voice trails off baka
No what? What are you responding to? I'm making the point if you type like such a neckbeard on ghazi you don't stand a chance at being hit on irl.
1 MilitaryBees 2017-12-02
Uh-huh.
1 80BAIT08 2017-12-02
Well since gamerghazi are taking your posts as well as we are /r/neckbeardRPG will probably have you.
1 MilitaryBees 2017-12-02
Cool, thanks!
1 keepittropical 2017-12-02
Are you a fucking hermit or something?
1 DrinkProfessionally 2017-12-02
Dont you think we are social animals?
Anyway, you understand why your moral rule might be a bad one if we universalized it for the entire humanity yes? it would create a lot of misery considering how most people enjoy the company and spontaneity of human interaction.
1 nmx179 2017-12-02
Just because you're an antisocial weirdo doesn't mean the rest of the world is or should be.
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-12-02
nods respectfully towards you
1 starship_litterbox 2017-12-02
These people are LARPing ad human beings. No way they're from this planet.
1 bareballzthebitch 2017-12-02
Just being reported for looking at a person these days is considered eye-rape.
1 MooseHeckler 2017-12-02
Absolutely haram.
1 Why_We_Need_Islam 2017-12-02
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
/u/FAstowaway
Excuse me? People should have complete agency on who they choose to talk to, why did you respond to that comment without knowing if they wanted to talk to you?
1 Zozbot 2017-12-02
zoz
1 Zozbot 2017-12-02
zle
1 Zozbot 2017-12-02
zozzle
1 ahbslldud 2017-12-02
GOOD insight
1 giroth 2017-12-02
Zoz always nails it
1 TinyJibble 2017-12-02
u/FAstowaway, I think you might enjoy this
1 FAstowaway 2017-12-02
Yeah I have several of Alexander's posts saved including radicalizinf the romance less and the untitled one on scott aaronson
1 Rith2 2017-12-02
But muh men
1 ironicshitpostr 2017-12-02
FUCKING RATNERDS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
"RATIONALISTS" ARE THE MAYOEST OF ALL MAYOS
1 FAstowaway 2017-12-02
delet this
1 giroth 2017-12-02
You post on r/drama, you think the fact that you use party parrots without mod consent might have something to do with it?
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-02
An interesting, but inadvertent admission that men have been shouldering most of the "emotional burden" for centuries.
women "initiate"; men "harass"
Unintentionally making someone uncomfortable = not okay. Got it.
A woman telling me she is interested when I don't reciprocate makes me uncomfortable. This is not okay.
It wasn't before they tried to impose their anxiety-driven personal preferences on the rest of society.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
It's not really inadvertent. It's pretty much common knowledge in feminist circles that the patriarchy damages men as well as women.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-02
So they'd concede that men having to approach women is actually a "burden" on men?
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
It's not really conceding anything though? Again it's a common acknowledgement that a patriarchal society does negatively effect men. Men being the ones society expects to initiate relationships is certainly a negative aspect.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-02
Why don't women focus on rectifying that aspect of "patriarchy" that they can control: How often they approach men.
Step it up, ladies! Show us how to initiate without it being an "unwelcome advance".
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
The problem is not that modern feminists are unable to visualize and spot issues.
The problem is that their solution to those issues often ranges from unworkable, to selfish, to batshit insane.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
I can't really refute anything if you provide nothing to the dialogue but straw men.
1 TherapyFortheRapy 2017-12-02
Ah, the feminazi shuffle. Speak in generalities, and you won't address generalities. Speak about a specific incident, and 'there are many feminisms', so you won't address that, either.
No matter what, your kind makes an excuse not to address anything you find uncomfortable. It's become too obvious not to ignore these rhetorical tricks feminists rely on to avoid any actual discussion, rather than their preferred method of communication, lecture giving.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
I've addressed several people already who both used specifics and generalities.
Can't really address "women make bad things instead of good" though.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
What strawman?
We are talking here about flirting, right? And the concommitant issues with failed flirting with someone who you have to interact professionally afterward.
Now, a sane approach would be to understand that flirting is a necessary part of the dating process. And that at some point, someone will need to take the initiative and a take a risk to flirt with another person, without knowing if that will work out or be reciprocated. Then a social structure in which approved methods, places and manners of flirting can be agreed upon where both the person flirter, and the flirtee know what is expected of them.
The insane approach is to just randomly blame "the patriarchy" for this and insist that if we just get rid of the patriarchy, everything will be ok. Cause it won't, since "the patriarchy" isn't the reason why people flirt. Nor does it address the key point here, which has nothing to do with flirting at all, but with managing the fallout when flirting fails.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
I've got a feeling you didn't read what the discussion was about.
Yeah there it is I figured. So yeah you're arguing about a strawman. Neither the article that was posted on Ghazi nor any of the downvoted and deleted comments were talking about how flirting is the result of a patriarchy. You've made that point up whole cloth.
No?
Since when has overthrowing something ever solved all problems dude? Like if that's what you take away from a statement I can't really prevent you from make that leap of logic. Perhaps ask for clarification instead of assuming others points?
....uhh. It's a pretty simple rule. If the other party can't disengage from the flirting don't do it. The second the other party decides they don't want to participate in your flirting move on. Most harrassment comes from people who don't get that second part.
It's a good thing that being made uncomfortable isn't considered harassment by most people or judges. It's just considered a creep thing to do and certain guidelines are established of how to avoid making people uncomfortable.
Most social interaction isn't entirely opaque and yet making someone uncomfortable (regardless of gender) is never considered a good thing and is something most people would recommend avoiding doing too much.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
Oh? So you didn't type the following?
If it won't, then why do you act like it will?
Brah, the following is a direct quote from the linked thread. It does not define "sexual harrassment" as requiring the woman being unable to disengage, and DOES define it as requiring her to be made uncomfortable. I highlighted some words in bold to make that more obvious.
This sentiment, which you apparently agree is shitty, is fairly common and prevalent among modern feminists.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Uhh. You might want to try reading that again dude. Flirting isn't a result of the patriarchy men being expected to be the only one initiating flirting IS and THAT is what is negative. Flitting is a okay but it's kinda shitty that men are expected to be the initiators and women who initiate are considered weird. Read what is there not what you want to be there.
When did I act that it will or is it again you drawing an erroneous conclusion based on a point you hope I will make? DO you have some requirement that parties must make clear that when they want society to be improved in a certain way they have to exclaim that the improvements wont fix all problems in society?
The downvoted to hell comment that a bunch a feminists were making fun of is common among feminists declares reddits top scientist.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
I'm reading exactly what you're typing, brah. Maybe clarify your thoughts better if you want me to read anything other than exactly what you wrote.
Not all problems. But at the very least, it should fix the problem you claim to want improved.
You: "if we get rid of the patriarchy, then men won't have to initiate flirting any more"
Me: "lol no, that's not logical and you haven't really thought through how that's going to work"
You: "well, i didn't say getting rid of the patriarchy would fix ALL problems"
See how dumb that conversation is? That's all on you.
And THERE is the no true scotsman argument i've been waiting for.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
It's right there my dude. You wanted a strawman and misread. you don't have to get upset about it.
No? Like you get socialization is a thing and merely removing the thing that causes said socialization won't just magically make it go away. Are you a hashtag activist or something? I can see no other reason you would think such an inane thing.
Me: If we get rid of a patriarchy then it won't be considered a bad thing for men to be the passive ones when it comes to flirting.
You: Why are you saying removing a patriarchy will fix all problems
Me: lol
You: NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!
Holy shit I'm a prohpet. lol. SO okay my dude lemme explain how a no True Scotsman argument works. I have to say a generalization like "No feminist would ever slut shame" then you would provide an example of a feminist slut shaming and then I would say "yeah but that's not a REAL feminist"
You being an idiot and saying "this quote I have linked is very common for feminists to say" and me saying "I don't think the downvoted comment on a feminist subreddit is a good example" is not really a No true scotsman argument. I am not arguing that feminists don't have that opinion clearly some of them do as that quote is a real albeit dumb, idea just that it is not a common belief as you allege.
Might want to add this information to the informal fallacy list you have sticky noted to your monitor.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
See, here's the problem. At no point did anyone in any of these threads being that up as an issue. I'm not sure if you just misread the conversation, or if you are deliberately changing your argument.
Actually, that is how a cause and effect relationship works. If something "causes" a given effect, then removing the given "cause" should also lead to the effect going away. If it doesn't, then we need to revisit what the true cause was.
If you're not actually arguing with me, then why do you keep typing? You could easily, from the start, have just said "yeah, I agree with you that some feminists are dumb and believe dumb things. But i think that those are outliers and overall the movement is more focused on real issues and improving the lot of everyone". Then, we could have had a much more productive conversation about what the modern feminist movement really means and how the solutions you think it represents can be beneficial to fixing problems, specifically the issue in this conversation about flirting and having to take a risk to initiate a conversation without knowing if the other person will be receptive.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
This entire thing stemmed from you misreading an argument from my inital statement which was:
You drew a super erroneous conclusion from me saying "society expecting one gender and only one gender to do a thing is bad"
So yeah you don't understand how socialization works. Removing the cause of socialization will eventually remove the thing it's socializing from society but it's not a magic wand that immediately removes it.
So to put it in easier terms for you the patriarchy doesn't directly cause the result of socialization it however IS responsible for the socialization and removal of the patriarchy would remove social conditioning which in turn would solve issues related to men and women being socialized into roles they might not be comfortable with. Hence men will no longer be expected to have the onus on them in dating which means that less men will feel forced to have to be the ones doing the flirting and shouldering the emotional burden of rejection blah blah blah.
Like if you think the feminist argument against the patriarchy is it's going around and directly forcing women to not get jobs in the tech sector and other traditionally male dominated fields then you don't understand the basics of feminist theory and you might want to look into it before ranting on the internet about feminazis.
Ugh
I am impressed that you admit to intentionally misrepresenting my points. Like I never said all feminist were the wisest creatures in the universe and had never done anything bad or dumb at all. YOU assumed that because the only people you've had conversations with about this were 1) People who agree with you and 2) Tumblr stereotypes.
Of course I didn't preface my argument with "some feminists are dumb" because no shit some people in everything are dumb. Every single thing you will talk about in the human condition will have outliers I just assumed you were aware of this fact and I guess I'm sorry you understood people? I really don't know what to say to that honestly.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
So, what you are saying is that the problem isn't "the patriarchy", it’s how women are socialized?
I think we can agree with that. Which, if you recall, has been my point all along. That rather than discussing a logical nexus between how people are socialized and discussing possible ways to alter that socialization, some feminists have a tendency to just wave "the patriarchy" around as a magic fix. Then instead of actually explaining the link from point A "the patriarchy" to point b "the issue that needs fixing", they throw out a "well, trust me if you really knew feminist theory, you'd agree with me." Which, just to be clear since you haven't been getting my hints so far, is literally the thing you are doing right now.
Personally, i don't think it's appropriate to blame "the patriarchy" for how women are socialized around dating. First, I think it's much more appropriate to blame feminine notions of polite and socially correct behavior for a generally passive attitude toward interaction with others. Engaging in social contact with someone who may not want you to is an inherently aggressive action. Second, I think that to whatever degree "the patriarchy" still exists today, it does not restrict women from chatting up dudes first. Maybe 100 years ago, one could say that men frown upon women asking them out. But in 2017? Even the most socially conservative dude is totally ok with it.
Then why did you argue with a post whose essense was "people don't have an issue with feminists because they point out that world is not perfect, they have an issue with feminists because sometimes they say dumb shit in an attempt to fix it".
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
In the same way that the problem isn't that a house is on fire it's the structural failing that causes the house to collapse.
It's rather difficult to fix socialization when the apparatus that causes said socialization is in place.
Who cares? People outside of their internet communities don't take them seriously
Not blaming a society for the way people are socialized is an incredibly reddit thing to do.
Did those feminine notions come from space? Magic? The gestalt entity of female? If it came from a place would you not argue it came from the society in which they were raised in?
Restricts as in looks down on? Yes it absolutely does. No it doesn't physically prevent them anymore than it puts a gun to a mans head and tells him not to report when he's been rape. It just discourages these things.
....seriously? Men are rapists. Do you have a problem with that statement?
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
"Society" and "the patriarchy" are not actually synonyms. You do reakize this, right?
It came from other women. Who, by virtue of being women, can't really be counted as a patriarchy. This, again, is the point you're missing. That when you slap every problem with society as being the fault of a nebulous "patriarchy", you ignore the very real role in which women themselves play a part in shaping society. Sure, you can argue that those women are simply reinforcing patriarchal notions. But then we need to ask, where did those patriarchial notions come from? And, who is still reinforcing them in 2017? If the answer to either question isn't dudes, then you can't blame "the patriarchy". And i repeat, these sort of societal attitudes, in these days, are mostly coming from women.
NotAllMen.
The implication in that statement being that while i agree that "some" men are rapists, not all are.
Note how i have been careful throughout this conversation to stress that only some feminists sometimes say dumb shit. I've already done half the work for you. All you need to do is stop being defensive of any criticism of feminism and feminists and really try to understand what I'm trying to tell you.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
You understand that the US and most nations are patriarchal societies correct?
So women just one day came along and decided to all be like a thing. You actually think it came from the gestalt entity of woman. lol.
A predominately male power structure. AKA a patriarchy
A predominately male power structure. AKA a patriarchy
So you DO have a problem with the statement Men are rapists. Now I guess you understand my problem with saying feminists are like X.
Or not. Goodness you're dense.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
I would question that the current US society is a truly patriarchal society, yes. But that's a different argument than the one we are having.
First, when someone says "the patriarchy", unless they are already a feminist, most people don't interpret that as meaning "current society". We interpret that (as it's original intent) to mean an system of men oppressing women. If you don't want to be misunderstood, then it's obviously better to just use the less easily misunderstood word "society".
Second, if you work through that logic, basically what you are saying is "society is the reason why society has issues". Which is an entirely pointless thing to say. Sure it sounds fancy when you say "the patriarchy is the reason why society has issues". But logically, if "society" and "the patriarchy" synonymous, then really, you're just saying the first thing.
It's better than thinking it came from the gestalt entity of man. Or denying that women had any role in shaping our modern society.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
You could just admit that you were misinterpreting a word. Instead you have decided to make up that you were actually using the word to mean it's original meaning when no you just didn't understand that the patriarchy is referring to a patriarchal society.
Well that's stupid. Societies aren't nesscarily the problem patriarchal societies are.
Hence the reason why the term the patriarchy is used. You've literally just tricked yourself into understanding.
"My erroneous point is justified because I am a man and feel like it'd be better if you blamed the gender that is not me"
THese things didn't come from the gestalt entity of men (I don't think you know what gestalt means btw) as I said the problems came from a society ran by one gender that has a vested interest in maintaining power into the hands of aforementioned gender, it just happened to be men. It could have been women and you'd see similar problems about a matriarchy.
things that were never said .txt
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
You're still not getting it. It doesn't actually matter what specific words you say, the logical chain still has to connect.
Either you mean "current society" when you say "the patriarchy", in which case that's a dumb and pointless thing to say. Or you mean something else, in which case you need to explain what that thing is, and how it connects to the problem you've identified and seek to resolve.
Just saying "well, once we change society, everything will work itself out" is pointless.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Well one of us isn't that's for sure.
You made a gigantic post about how words were very important and now they don't.
Saying once we change society for the better things will get better is a pretty obvious statement. Here lets try another statement from a few hundred years ago.
Once we remove the aristocracy things will improve.
DO you find that statement pointless too?
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
Do you understand how multi-prong arguments work? There isn't only a single thing wrong with the things you are saying. There are multiple things wrong. One problem is that the words you use obsfuscate your point. Another problem is that even if we clear up the confusion, your point still doesn't have any logic behind it. You need to fix both problems.
No, it isn't. First, because it assumes that the changes you want to make are inherently better without doing any of the logical work to prove it. Second, because even if the changes themselves are better from a moral/ethical perspective, you still need to prove how they will result in a resolution of the problem at hand.
Considering the history of such revolts, yes.
Look at the French Revolution. Bunch of high minded idealists claiming that if you just got rid of Aristos, everything would be better. Was it? The Reign of Terror would suggest otherwise.
Arguing with you is like arguing with an extreme libertarian. Everything is resolved by "the free market". Sure, "the free market" and competition are good, the same way equality of the sexes is good. But you can't just wave the free market at every problem like a magic wand. In the same way, you can't just wave "ending the patriarchy" at every problem.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
....?
You understand that most conversations don't end with "end the patriarchy and things good" right? Like in an actual conversation about problems caused by the patriarchy usually involved why the patriarchy causes them and why removing it would improve things.
Considering France does not currently have a starving peasant class that comprises of 70 percent of the population things have worked out pretty well.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
What I understand is that in this conversation i'm having with you, right now, you haven't actually developed any further from "end the patriarchy and things good". I don't need a Tumblr feminist strawman to argue against. You, yourself, right now, are a pretty good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Well mostly because I pointed out how flirting would be a lot better without the patriarchy I explained why then you had a semantics argument of whether we should use the term patriarchy or society.
Are you really honestly arguing in favor of the mass starvation of the majority of France?
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
No, you actually didn't do that. You just claimed it would be, without actually explaining the logical chain in which that would work.
Again, going back to the my original point. The problem is not that feminists are unable to spot and identify problems. It's that their proposed solutions to those problems are shitty and/or unworkable. Starvation is bad, yes. But the Reign of Terror isn't good either. Maybe a solution that avoids either is the one we ought to be considering. Like, for example, how England managed to come out of the 18th century and into a more egalitarian society in the 19th ad 20th centuries without mass murder and mayhem.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Yes I did. I had to explain what socialization was to you because you were apparently unaware.
It's almost as if you can remove terrible power structures like patriarchys and aristocracies without guillotining everyone.
Enslaving most of the known world was a positive outcome to you?
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
No, you didn't. All you did was say the same thing again.
Here's what you said.
Paraphrased down to it's essense and with all the buzzwords stripped out, it is: "Ending patriarchy will stop the chain of events that leads to men being forced to bear the emotion burden of rejection".
That's not a proof. It's not an argument. It's you just stating a thing you believe to be true and expecting everyone to take your word for it.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Socialization is a buzzword to you. lol
Did it.
Removal of an unequal system. This can be done through a wide variety of means including electing more female voices to positions of power, changing the way the media portrays masculinity and career paths. Like it's a huge topic that is constantly discussed by people outside the internet.
Unless you're just talking about the flirting thing in which case here is an easy step by step guide that I have already said.
1)Men and women are socialized to expect men to start flirting. (if I need to explain how this is unfair I'm going to withdraw from talking with you)
2) Socialization comes from well society which is currently one run primarily by one gender (men)
3) In order to improve the problem the socialization must first be removed.
4) this is done through either removing or changing the societal power structure that is causing afore mentioned inequality or work within the patriarchy (see typing "Societal power structure run primarily by men" is really long so a shorter term was made)
Uhhh. This is not something you have done for literally any of your arguments. You seem to acknowledge there is a problem with society but have left the solution at "it's the gender that is not me's fault. I've also already done this but now I've put it in an easier to read format for your particular needs.
Wait... you actually think the primary purpose of ending the patriarchy would be to get women to initiate flirting more. Jesus Christ lol.
Ah the typical reddit thing. Make an argument no one has said then argue against it in the same breath.
sigh
Turn on your monitor.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
The problem with your logic chain comes from here:
There is a logical gap between those two statements that you apparently cannot see.
Here's what I mean. We can agree that western society was historically patriarchal. And we can agree that the effects of that patriarchy lingers. I personally would disagree with the statement that society is STILL primarily controlled by men, or at least with the extent to which you apparently believe it is, but that's a separate issue.
But, then you jump from "our socialization comes from a patriarchal society" to "in order to improve the problem of women not initiating flirting, we must remove that socialization". Those statements are not directly connected. You still need to first explain how a patriarchial society is the only (or even the primary) thing responsible for women not initiating flirting.
The second issue is that you need to define what "remove the socialization" would entail. You added a lot of nice sounding bullshit (at least I assume I sounds nice to you) about "changing the societal power structure". But ultimately, you still haven't actually given a concrete idea of what that would be. It's just vague enough to sound good without actually meaning anything useful for this specific problem.
Again, i'm not actually arguing about whether ending patriarchy is a good thing. What I'm saying is that when people respond to someone complaining about an issue with a vague and unhelpful non-solution, it's incredibly irritating.
This is not true. At all. The reason most men are told to initiate in this day and age is because otherwise, we won't ever get laid. It has nothing to do with trying to be the person in charge, and everything to do with lack of choice. There's a reason most current advice for men about how to flirt or pick up women tends to have a tinge of salesmanship to it. It's because, most often, the dynamics of dating for dudes tends to have the sense of trying to sell an unpalatable product to a largely uninterested demographic.
There are very few dudes who subscribe to the "red pill" philosophy of a he-man alpha who does things like ordering food for his dates to show he's in control, etc. And yet, just about every single dude will tell you that the only thing that works when dating is to just take the initiative, ask women out and suck up the constant rejection until you succeed. Cause sitting on your ass and waiting for them to come to you will never, ever, work.
Yeah, because i'm not actually arguing for the resolution of a problem. I'm pointing out that the reason why people get irritated by people like you is because of the way you act, and then highlighting examples of the flaws that cause that irritation.
No. What i think is that if presented with a problem "how to get women to initiate flirting more", your suggested solution (e.g. "end the patriarchy") should be tailored to actually solving that problem. It doesn't matter if ending the patriarchy is the best idea since sliced bread and will cause kittens to shit rainbows and spontaneous orgasms for everyone in the world, if it doesn't solve the problem at hand, it's not a good solution to that problem.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
The majority of lawmakers are men. Hmmmmm.
I... are you real? So like I need to understand how much of a make believe world you live in so before I answer that question I need to ask where do you think the pressure on men starting flirting comes from?
Because that's not really the topic of conversation? Like pointing out a fire needs to be put out on a building doesn't mean you need a detailed analysis on fighting the fire complete with logistical plans in order to say "Maybe the building should not be on fire" Again as I've pointed out you don't hold to your own standard so why should I waste my time?
Christ you're dense.
lol
Alright my dude you've never flirted. You've watched sitcoms on what you think flirting looks like but jesus christ.
Yeah this isn't projection not at all.
So outside of how sad that got where in the world do you think the idea of men should be lol used car salsemen and women should be... car buyers??? come from? Did it come from magic? Did it come from the gestalt entity of women? OOOOOOOOooooor?
I have a feeling you're about to contradict yourself
**in·i·ti·a·tive iˈniSH(ē)ədiv/ noun
hmmmm
You've made several inane arguments to support your propositions that you didn't bother supporting beyond opening your.... unique brand of thinking to the public at large.
that's not the problem though? The problem is that men feel like they are supposed to be the ones to initiate and also that women are told they are supposed to wait for a man to initiate. Just changing the former would fix the latter.
But you think that the idea that men are supposed to be knights and women are supposed to be damsels came from women so lol.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
If a house is on fire, and a bunch of people stand around smugly saying "yup, I told you, your house is on fire, maybe it shouldn't be on fire", one would be reasonably irritated at their lack of usefulness.
It certainly didn't come from the historical notions of patriarchy. In a patriarchy, the person who controlled things would be her DAD, right? Hence trying to create a connection with a woman directly was less important.
Where it comes from is the fairly obvious understanding that in order to get what you want from life, you (normally) have to be active in seeking it out. Dating and Sales are fairly similar in terms of the need to create a connection with a stranger. So also is making friends, which is why a lot of sales tips and tactics focus on the idea of leveraging common skills for making friends into skills for developing a aquaintance level relationship and using that relationship to sell a product.
See, i don't find it odd that guys get dating advice similar to sales tactics. What I find odd is that women generally don't.
Here's a better definition: the ability to assess and initiate things independently.
I don't think it will work like that automatically. It seems more likely that we will simply end up with a situation where everyone sits around passive-aggressively waiting for someone else to take action.
We can take lesbian relationships as similar case study. A 1993 study of lesbian relationships found that lesbian couple often had more difficulty initiating or balancing sex.
And after a long enough period of this, someone (probably dudes) will realize it's not working and start taking initiative again. The reason I suspect it will be dudes is because dudes generally have physical less risk when it comes to dating, so it's easier for them to take initiative. Women are generally smaller and physically weaker, so there's a higher risk to a their physical safety. Which is one of the reasons why they aren't as driven to initiate contact that may end up poorly. Also, the mechanics of the male orgasm and the female orgasm differ enough that it's generally easier for men to experience pleasure during sex than women. Maybe, hopefully, that will change as women are more socialized to be sex-positive, explore their own bodies and figure out how to guarantee their own pleasure. But I suspect it won't change all that much. There's just certain physical realities of how penises work versus how vaginas work.
Do i have a suggestion for how to change this? Not really. But I'm also not enough of a idiot to suggest otherwise and trumpet aloud a half-baked solution that's as likely to exacerbate the problem as to fix it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love
It's been fairly well established that the chilvalric tradition was created/promulgated by women.
This is why I say you seem to be discounting the influence of women on society. Even in the most patriarchal society, women still had influence and control over some aspects of socialization.
1 WikiTextBot 2017-12-02
Courtly love
Courtly love (or fin'amor in Occitan) was a medieval European literary conception of love that emphasized nobility and chivalry. Medieval literature is filled with examples of knights setting out on adventures and performing various services for ladies because of their "courtly love". This kind of love is originally a literary fiction created for the entertainment of the nobility, but as time passed, these ideas about love changed and attracted a larger audience. In the high Middle Ages, a "game of love" developed around these ideas as a set of social practices.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Yes thats definitely the thing yep. Please have some experience outside the internet.
Oh that's right we never had literally hundreds of years of women being considered almost entirely on their dowry and how many sons they could make. Silly me.
....what
No seriously what?
You either don't know anything about sales or human relationships and I'm honestly fifty fifty on which it could be.
I'm guessing there is a lot of things you don't understand about women.
Not for the phrase "take the initiative" that's entirely the second definition of the word and it's the dang phrase you used.
I'm not sure that a study taken during the height of gay panic is nesscarily the best source.
this reveals a lot more about you than I'd like to know. Stop being selfish in bed men.
You've already come up with several half baked solutions your last one was "women need to get better at orgasms because men are bad at sex."
Seriously get better at sex. Your partner regardless of gender will thank you.
I wish I had the fucking gall to say I was trolling you the whole time but no sadly I wasn't.
Mhmm but you're kind of ignoring why it was spread and created in the first place. Because getting fucked was the chief responsibility of foisted onto women. But like no. Chivalry was definitely created and ignored by dudes. The courtly love chunk was mostly spread by women because what the fuck else are you going to do when you're mostly considered property?
So half a point?
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
You keep saying this like it means something. The internet isn't some magical land peopled by crazy robots with no connection to the real world. Let me assure you right now, the same people who say stupid things on the internet, also say those same things in real life. I'll bet that when in a dinner party if prompted, you'd say the same exact same things about how "ending the patriarchy" is the solution to dating issues men having with having to initiate.
I'm fairly certain you're the one who doesn't understand either fully if you really can't see the connection.
There's this thing I've noticed where people who don't spend much time thinking about the things they do and why they do the things they do, tend to be highly resistant to any analysis of behavior that seeks to maximize results. Especially when it's couched in deliberately unsentimental terms like I did just then.
The irony is, if I said something like "the best thing to do in dating and sales is just to meet people, try to get to know them, and put your best foot forward", you'd probably agree with it. But that's literally the same thing as "leveraging common skills for making friends into skills for developing a aquaintance level relationship". I just find, personally, that with the latter language it's easier to understand the underlying mechanics.
Probably. Never claimed to the expert on women. I don't understand how that's germane to this discussion though.
Not sure how that disproves my point. Note how nobody has ever talked about women being selfish in bed as a problem. And no, it's not because women are inherently better or more generous at sex.
No, actually I didn't. I've been careful this whole time to point out that I don't actually hold any answers. I'm just pointing out that people get irritated by those who DO claim to know the answers, but clearly don't.
I'm not ignoring it. What I'm attempting to get you to see is that socialization isn't purely a result of the patriarchy in such a way that getting rid of the patriarchal structures instantly changes socialization in the way you want. It's much more complex than that, and often the way we are socialized either is a result of counter-balancing forces, or has nothing at all do with reinforcing male dominance.
Which means that just removing the patriarchy could easily not do anything at all, or even result in adverse effects as a system intended to work counter to patriarchal thought now runs unchecked. It's variable and depends on the issue being considered, and exactly what change we are proposing to society. Which is why I keep saying that you can't just say "end the patriarchy" like it's a magic tool to fix all problems.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Nah it'd depend on who I was talking to and how well versed they were in feminist stuff. More in depth ideas are much easier to be discussed with words than text. With you you're more... unique. Also lol at dinner party
The connection pretty much ends at "charisma is helpful in both" however the core thing about sales that will fuck you over majorly in anything not called tinder is emotional manipulation has a tendency to fuck you over long term in relationships. Human beings don't tend to form long lasting bonds with the person that sold them their car you dork.
You don't understand how your ignorance on half the population on earth is a germane on a conversation about gender issues.
I think we're done here then.
Well you haven't you at one point said a gestalt entity of women were responsible for these problems which is very funny.
But you haven't really at all? Your smoking gun was "women did a thing" which you seem to be acknowledging right here that they did because of a patriarchal society they lived under. Like you understand that if you live in a society that encourages or forces women to be a way a woman being that way doesn't suddenly mean it's not a result of the society right?
You really just seem to be obsessed with whataboutisms.
Grow up.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
I know that. My point is, if we're talking about flirting and issues with it, and you acknowledge that fixing those issues isn't really a good reason to change our society to less patriarchal model, don't claim that it is.
Again, YOU were the one who brought it up as the solution. The connection being made is entirely your own, and my whole and entire this whole time is pointing out that it's a shitty connection that is way overused.
And maybe in a different context, that might be an interesting conversation. In THIS context though, which is entirely and singularly focused on dudes complaining about women not appreciating the effort and difficulty in initiating flirting, it's not appropriate.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
To which I said "That's not my point at all" You've been arguing with yourself for most of the time and while it's pretty funny I feel like I should put a stop to it.
Like dude. My second response to you was pointing out that you were arguing with your own strawman.
Like you understand that you were the one who injected yourself into that conversation right. My initial point to him was that feminism very easily acknowledges the patriarchy damages men too and that some men feeling like they are forced to be the ones to shoulder the emotional burden of rejection else they are spineless and non men like IS something that is created and fostered by the patriarchy.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
It may not be the point you intend to make. But it is the point that you keep arguing. It's really not this difficult. If you agree that "ending the patriarchy" isn't the solution to every problem, then you don't need to defend it.
Lol no. Pretty sure my read on his point is the correct one.
See? This shit? This is what i'm talking about right here. It's like you can't just acknowledge that maybe feminism isn't the answer.
The point you think he was trying to make and the point he was actually making are two very different things.
You seem to be trying to argue the point that feminism helps men who want to be passive in their interactions and much more like women in that regard. Which, sure, that's probably true. But it's not actually the point that either the guy you responded to, or me, or most of the other people disagreeing with you in this thread are speaking to. Do you understand that?
The basic tenet that might help you understand is this. Do you think the guy you responded to, in any way, seems like the kind of guy who wants to be more feminine? If not, then your point is hilariously misdirected.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
No but I do need to keep arguing that "this is not the point I am making" with you every six sentences because you keep saying it is my point.
That was the fucking original topic of discussion that you were responding to you dunce.
That's what the fucking topic he was responding to about. If his point isn't related to that it's a non sequitur so who gives a shit?
???? I don't really care but I assume he cares about this.
Which was what the conversation was about.
Is this where you admit that you didn't read the conversation before stepping into it?
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
No, it very much wasn't. Hell, I can solve this real quick. Let's get /u/SmurfPrivilege in here to settle this.
Hey /u/SmurfPrivilege, can you settle this argument for me. Are you sad that you aren't, as a man, allowed to be more feminine? Would you like society to stop pressuring you to be manly and take the initiative in talking to girls?
Or, as any sane person with a modicum of reading ability would understand, was your point that it's hard for anyone to initiate conversation with a stranger. And that difficulty is made harder by women labelling otherwise innocent attempts by men to do so as "harassment".
See, nobody gives a shit about whatever you guys were talking in Ghazi. Here, right now, this conversation is about what /u/SmurfPrivilege was complaining about. Which sure as shit wasn't what you seem to think it is.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
He was directly quoting the thing that was on Ghazi as his first response!
You know how I said I don't really know or care if it's personally about him but I assume he feels that some men are foisted into the emotional burden of rejection.
Hell you weren't even talking about this.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
Hey, did you read Smurf's reply? It might help you understand a few things.
Me? No I wasn't. Smurf sure as shit was though. I thought that was obvious, and only now did i realize how badly you've misunderstood this entire conversation.
What I've been talking about is that it's not a great idea for people like you respond to complaints like that by talking about how great feminism is. And how "ending the patriarchy" will solve the problem. It's like no matter what the actual complaint, if it's gender related, someone like you will feel the need to chime in about how feminism can totally solve it. Which is incredibly unhelpful when applied to a large subset of the things men, in general, feel the need to complain about.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Yeah I assumed his initial argument had any sort of merit apparently he just wanted to make some MRA non-sequitur shrug my bad.
The problem with this statement is Smurfys original point isn't really what I was getting at. Since apparently he's just mad that women don't have to worry about sexually harassing men in flirting and that it's impossible for a man to know when he's sexually harassing a women.
Ironically however if his chief point is the double standards of society not expecting women to be the harassers there might be a reason for that... well I guess before I trigger you I'll ask a question. Why do you think that might be? Is it feminism's fault?
That's just not really a logical point. I somehow managed to have sex with different partners and eventually marry without ever being accused of sexually harassing a woman.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
It generally helps to actually try to understand things from someone else's point of view instead of instantly dismissing it.
And MY point is, if you aren't going to respond to the things people are actually concerned about, why are you responding at all? Again, this is an incredibly common situation. Where a guy complains about an issue relevant or concerned to him, and instead of thinking about and discussing that issue, someone rolls in to talk about feminism and how it can solve the problem. Even when it really, really, isn't the right solution for that problem.
Still not what he's talking about. Getting closer though.
That's not really his point though. Let me restate his point again:
And yeah, one could say that is feminism's fault. Or more specifically, overreach and over-correction by some feminists.
Just because you personally are not concerned about an issue doesn't really mean it doesn't exist. Or that anyone who might be genuinely concerned about it is an idiot.
Again, I'm not arguing his point of view. I think the subject as a whole is complicated and there are reasons for the various sides and differing perspectives that people have.
What I am arguing though, is that people like you really need to learn to think about the issue presented, and not just respond all the goddamn time with the same rote answer. Especially when, like here, it's manifestly the WRONG answer.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
You understand there are certain point's of views you can dismiss such as those that are arguing in bad faith or those based on entirely incorrect facts? ANd like. A whole bunch more.
My point is that I constructed that argument assuming his point was something that wasn't a MRA side tangent entirely unrelated to what the article was about.
A large part of his point is about double standards. And if he's not really making that point then there's really nowhere to go. The solution to that is make women less afraid of being taken advantage of and well that's a hard argument to make.
Uhh. Wait. In what way? Here's an honest question does a man have the right to talk to a woman who doesn't want to talk to him?
If he doesn't than I'd assume the upset doesn't come from being told to stop harassing the woman and the consequences that come from being called a harasser.
The second problem definitely isn't feminism's fault.
It's more about the people who are concerned about being labeled a harasser more often than not are harassers. Like call out culture is becoming a gigantic problem but you have social media giants to thank for that and not feminism.
Do feminists utilize call out culture absolutely. Is it entirely hypocritical to complain about this while on a call out subreddit also true.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
Bro, did you actually read Smurf's response?
That second sentence is a pretty clear example of the sort of overreach he's talking about.
No, the upset comes from being told no, stopping, and being labelled a harasser anyway.
For fuck's sake, the whole issue here is that harassment used to mean a repeated pattern of unwanted sexual advances. But lately, it feels like there's a concerted attempt to redefine it to eliminate the need for a pattern at all, and instead merely making someone uncomfortable, even with a single unwanted advance. And the issue that people have is that until you've actually made it, it's not really possible to know whether an advance is unwanted or not. Ideally, you try, it fails, you move on, everyone is ok. What's not ideal is: he tries, it fails, he moves on, weeks later he's getting 'called out' on social media.
And the people arguing for that redefinition are most definitely feminists.
No. Just, no. There is something inherently wrong with saying "well, if you're worried about being accused, you're probably guilty anyway". And I really shouldn't have to explain why.
Yeah, no. That's not how this works. Feminists (some, not all) are the ones doing this specific thing. So yeah, they are the ones to look at as the reason for it happening.
Brah, /r/drama is not a call out subreddit. Jesus, do you not know where you are?
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Which he literally never actually talks about!
If the upset isn't from the consequences why else would you care about being labeled a harasser?
Wait.... you think sexual harassment has to be repeated to be harassment? Sure you don't want to rephrase that point cause its kinda wrong.
No it's more in a society where we don't have a whole lot of men falsely accused of harassment or sexual assault compared to the number of men who do harass or sexually assault so it often appears to be a little disingenuous.
There are most certainly edge cases who have been falsely accused but there seems to be a disproportionate concern by a lot of the "What about being falsely accused!" crowd about being falsely accused and the fact that there's also a whole bunch who aren't and never get caught.
The reason it's happening is it's an effective tactic. Is that feminists (some not all) fault too?
Oh, you're just precious.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-02
Che is correct. My point was that different feminists are setting conflicting rules and throwing the word "harassment" at anyone who doesn't abide by their personal courtship preferences.
I'd like to see more women make the initial approach so that they can understand the impossibility of knowing ahead of time whether the advance is "unwelcome" and at the same time anticipating if the other person will feel uncomfortable.
I think Harvey Weinstein is a monster who deserves jail time for what he did. But the dude who got publicly shamed for inviting a girl up to his hotel room for coffee is a victim of slander, imo. I'm apparently a pretty decent-looking guy and if I applied the same standards to the women who have expressed an interest in me, there's about four different women who deserve to lose their jobs this year for making unwelcome advances.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Hmm. Lemme give you some dating tips. Can the woman easily leave? Go for it if she doesn't want to talk just leave her be. I have solved your impossible task.
Can you name me some prominent feminists who would disagree with my very ancient impossible guide?
Who?
Incel detected. I'm sorry for the loss of your subreddit.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-02
Holy shit, is this really the level of your discourse? Is this what you do all day..argue feverishly with trolls and channers about gender issues?
Here's what I've experienced as a man who hasn't bothered to approach women in the last few years:
Let's focus on that last one, because this was ongoing as recently as late summer of this year. This girl is 20-22 y.o., has a strained relationship with her parents, and few friends. She suffers from low self-esteem and had just gotten out of a physically/psychologically abusive relationship. She reached out to me because I treated her kindly (as I do with all women) and she found me attractive.
Here's an example of things I would be justified in doing according to feminists:
Instead, I politely declined her offers and explained to her that she didn't need to do these things to get a man's attention.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
No I post in r/drama all day.
citation needed
citation needed
Depends. Did you feel harassed by her?
Wait hold on.... you do that. You post here on reddit in a subreddit called r/Drama.
Did you feel harassed?
So your argument is a woman who gets sent dick pics should just nod their head because the person on the other end might just want aattention from women?
Also who was the cofee man you were talking about
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-02
What the fuck is up with this womansplaining about what I shouldn't be doing around women. I don't do any of this. Isn't that textbook womansplaining?
I'm talking about women's behavior and clarifying with you that this behavior is unacceptable.
Is that the test? You can take a shot with one of these approaches and if the victim doesn't feel "harassed", you can keep doing these things? You're not a harasser unless someone has filed a formal complaint? Are you serious!?
The issue of whether I feel "harassed" depends on how it is defined. My previous understanding is that it requires persistent behavior and disregard for the victim's attempts to put a stop to it. But now, the standard seems to be met by a single incident in which one is made uncomfortable. By that standard, I definitely feel "harassed". It was uncomfortable, and in a few of those instances described, I didn't have the option to leave. Instead, I had to de-escalate the situation and attempted to do so with minimal damage to the woman's pride.
I made no argument about dick pics. I'm relating my lived experience and you're attempting to use it as fodder to work out your hostility towards anyone who sheds light on abhorrent behavior of women.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
You can't really womansplain without being a woman?
Are you?
No?
I've got a bad feeling about this.
No? Like if your boss threatened to fire you unless you slept with her that's pretty obviously sexual harassment even though it's not necessarily a repeated behavior.
When it gets into being made to feel uncomfortable then yes I'd say the standard would be repeated behavior.
Do you have an example of a woman who was only made uncomfortable by some dude once and subsequently got him in trouble for sexual harassment?
You made a post about a woman who sent you unsolicited nudes... that's a pretty obvious comparison point.
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-02
You're doing a pretty good job if it. Let me mansplain this concept to you.
When a man describes his personal experience and someone jumps in to re-frame it from "a woman's perspective", that's called womansplaining. The gender of the womansplainer doesn't matter. Try to educate yourself, please.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
I don't think you can mansplain to another man my dude.
Oh you're doing a bit I get it.
I don't believe I've done this. I was curious if your point applied to both genders or it was just something that women did.
So like I can't explain something to you from a woman's perspective ironically doing that
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
I'm curious to see how you "no true scotsman" your way out of defending shit like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/7hhus0/trollx_legbeard_drama_on_a_post_that_says_all/.compact
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
I don't think you know what a no true scotsman argument is friend.
And if that's the link you decided to go with well it's kinda disappointing. The comment is downvoted because it's a dummy playing literalism about a funny tweet.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
I was assuming you would at least try to argue that they weren't representative of modern feminists.
I never imagined you'd be insane enough to dive right in and follow with the same bullshit.
Just so you remember, it really does take two people to make a baby. That's like elementary biology man.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Absolutely. It also takes more than two people to make most paintings (someone made the paints and canvas) who do we attribute credit to making the painting? I want you to either admit that we falsely give credit to inventors and artists or admit that you are just being weirdly defensive when it's related to kid making.
It's not even a gender thing it's a thing we do for literally everything involving a party doing the making and another supplying materials.
1 Che_Gueporna 2017-12-02
I can't even at this point.
I don't know if you're trolling or just insane enough to really believe this shit.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
I was wondering when you'd take this out.
1 Country-asshole 2017-12-02
Eh, no. Feminists ONLY acknowledge this when their hypocracy is called out and only as a half assed attempt to conceal the role women actively play in fucking up men’s lives. Note how they are saying “the PATRIARCY negatively affects men” and not “women’s sense of entitlement oppresses men”. The latter is literally true in this context - women expecting/demanding that men they find attractive approach them while they simultaneously creep shame (or worse) those men who approach whom they don’t find attractive. They rarely acknowledge that men get fucked over by WOMEN: it’s always the PATRIARCHY (I.e. other men) doing it. This is not an accident.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-12-02
The thing I find especially interesting about this is the language used. For instance, if you mention "toxic femininity" or "internalized misandry" to a feminist who just said that sure, we all understand that the Patriarchy hurts men too, they'll be in equal parts confused and scandalized.
For the people who are supposed to be really well aware of how language shapes thought and how harmful language (such as calling bad things "gay") can lead to very real prejudice and oppression, this stuff is a gigantic blind spot.
Of course this just shows that they are right about how privileged people tend to fail at recognizing oppression and need to listen very hard to oppressed people talking from their perspectives.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Well one toxic femininity isn't really a thing that exists. From a societal perspective femininity is rarely treated as a good thing in men, and in women femininity means being docile and servile. While that can have negative aspects it doesn't really cause the systemic abuse that toxic masculinity does.
Often times you will find feminists who dislike that term as it's primarily used to draw false equivalencies.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-12-02
Toxic masculinity refers among other things to the aspects of masculinity that hurt men themselves (like refusing help, suppressing emotions, prioritizing work over family, and so on).
100% and then more of what is usually called "internalized misogyny" could be similarly called "toxic femininity". Being docile and servile, avoiding traditionally male occupations, slut-shaming other women, all that stuff.
My point is that you'll never ever hear any feminist doing that, using the term "toxic femininity", because when it's about them it's suddenly really obvious how it has denigrating and hostile connotations against all femininity, will be used to dismiss all those problems (it's your own fault for adopting toxic femininity, deal with it yourself), and so on.
And conversely, they will never talk about "internalized misandry" because it actually earnestly implies that patriarchal society hurts most men too and genuinely calls for addressing that on the societal level.
And as I said what adds insult to injury is that it comes from the people who tell us that we shouldn't use the word "dumb" because it still has lingering connotations that might increase prejudice against deaf people. I mean hard of hearing, sorry.
1 Ls777 2017-12-02
This is just my personal opinion (and I'd agree that the terms are used unfairly alot), but I believe it's not just aspects of masculinity that hurt men themselves that makes it toxic masculinity, but aspects that are generally considered a positive thing but become unhealthy in extremes.
As in, the idea the men are strong and unemotional you wouldn't describe as misandrist. That's usually considered a positive aspect of masculinity. But the examples you provided are taking those aspects to a level where it becomes toxic.
Something that would be internalized misandry would be stuff like how men are generally considered more "disposable", there's generally has less concern for the safety and well being of men when compared to women.
Some things can be either or - for example women avoiding male professions could be from toxic femininity (believing themselves to be above work for men) or internalized misogyny (believing themselves to not be capable of work for men, learned helplessness)
Basically, the tldr is that toxic gender roles are harm to yourself caused by trying to reach gender role ideals, while internalized misandry/misogyny is contempt, hatred, or prejudice for your own gender.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-12-02
I'd agree with this distinction if I ever see feminists using the other respective term to talk about that kind of issues. Until toxic is only ever masculinity and internalized is only ever misogyny it's kinda pointless to say that well, maybe sometimes it would be actually more precise to describe something as toxic masculinity rather than internalized misandry. Maybe it would, but nobody does the other thing anyways.
Also I want to point out up front that I'm not being upset with "tumblr feminists" here and unfairly generalizing, that's what literally all feminists do. Like I'm pretty sure that you will be unable to find a single feminist talking about "toxic femininity".
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
That's partially true but it's not really that specific it's any element of masculinity that cause detrimental effects. It's not primarily things masculinity that hurts men or women it's all of it.
Agree with the former but the other two are hard to agree with since we have a society that specifically tells women to avoid those careers and slut shaming is not something done by one gender but it is something done to one gender.
I mean I think that's being a bit disingenuous by the very nature that it is a word with a modifier to it "toxic" it is stating that not all of the thing is bad.
You haven't had many conversation with non tumblr stereotype feminists then because this is a frequent topic of discussion.
Yeah like I said. Tumblr stereotypes.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-12-02
You didn't actually address my point. Look, here's a challenge: get one of those browser plugins that can replace arbitrary words with other words (like "SJWs" with "skeletons") and set it up to replace "internalized misogyny" with "toxic femininity" and "toxic masculinity" with "internalized misandry", then go read your favorite feminist websites and see how you like it.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
But I did? I mean that point was:
Which is purely about tumblr idiots making a dumb point.
Replacing toxic masculinity with internalized misandry would be like replacing all usages of the word rectangle with square. A lot of the time it'll be technically accurate but a lot of the time it will be wrong.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-12-02
OK do you think that avoiding calling bad things "gay", or unpleasant people "faggots" is tumblr idiocy as well?
How so? And how so replacing "toxic femininity" with "internalized misogyny" is not similarly wrong a lot of the time?
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
I don't do either calling bad things gay is mostly eyerolling and the second one is a slur that I'm less fond of.
I edited in an explanation after but it's because you'd be using a specific part of toxic masculinity to replace the general concept.
1 zergling_Lester 2017-12-02
Can you please try to keep track of the discussion? I'm saying that feminists tend to pay a lot of attention to the way our use of words subtly shapes our thoughts, correctly IMO in case of avoiding "gay" and "faggot" as slurs for example. Which makes the way they talk about "toxic masculinity" without a second thought all that more aggravating.
This would be a lot more convincing argument if we lived in a world where feminists used all four terms now and then. As long as toxic is only ever masculinity and internalized is only ever misogyny it's kinda pointless if not outright disingenuous to say that well, maybe sometimes it would be actually more precise to describe something as toxic masculinity rather than internalized misandry.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
You asked the question.
In what ways do they talk about toxic masculinity in a way that is similar to someone using a slur?
I stated why toxic femininity isn't really used. Can you give the examples of stereotypical feminine traits that are used toxically?
1 zergling_Lester 2017-12-02
In the same way that causes most feminists to react like a cat thrown into a bathtube when they hear the words "toxic femininity". I've already explained why it's (rightfully) perceived as problematic in my first or second comment in this thread.
2 - the decision to apply to women's studies rather than to software engineering is that woman and hers alone. It's the society's fault that she believes herself not up to par, but it's exactly the same as it's the society's fault that a man believes that he should rather drink himself to sleep every night than to seek psychological help. That's the same and the end result is the same: a toxic belief that's harmful to the carrier.
3 - what's your objection, slut-shaming other women is something that women do, because the society tells them to, and which ends up being harmful for women in general and often to themselves as well.
Who else slut-shames women and who else doesn't get slut-shamed is completely irrelevant. ACTUALLY! The only reason you think that that's valid objections is because you understand perfectly well that "toxic gender-inity" is a rhetorical weapon that says "you people suck", and that's why you respond to it with irrelevant "no, you people suck".
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
THat really doesn't answer my question unless you're just stating you were drawing a false equivalency on purpose.
So we're back to you take toxic masculinity as an assault on all men even though it's a got a modifier right in front of the word?
1 zergling_Lester 2017-12-02
Are you a mobile pleb or naturally lazy and can't find the comment I explicitly directed you towards?
Yeah of course it's going to be interpreted that way, exactly the same as any talk about "toxic femininity" will be used to attack femininity in general and all women understand it in advance and treat it as such.
Well if you want to make an honest argument that the situations are the same as far as the meaning of the words goes, but different because men complaining about suicides, homelessness, substance abuse etc are privileged and deserve to be taken down a notch, unlike women who complain about unequal representation in tech who must be supported by careful use of language, then that would be at least an honest argument.
You're not making that argument, you babble about "false equivalence" but don't say what that equivalence is or why it is false.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Saying man I really hate shitty cars is not saying all cars are shitty and therefore I hate all cars. I have never taken the word toxic masculinity as an assault on my personal state as a male.
Again I ask if you understand why Black Lives Matter advocates are annoyed by all lives matters spam despite the fact that the second statement is true?
1 zergling_Lester 2017-12-02
Are you on the spectrum or pretending for the sake of convenience?
Again, imagine a MRA talking about "toxic femininity". Is there any doubt in your mind that he reserves the right to decide which parts of femininity are toxic to himself, is going to use that to throw shade on femininity and women as a whole, and so on? And yeah, he will also tell you "but I specifically said that I don't mean all femininity" with a shit-eating grin that somehow permeates into his computer screen, gets transferred through the series of internet tubes, and almost visibly exudes from your screen.
It's exactly the same when a feminist does that.
Because black people are disadvantaged, so it's important to have a catchy phrase to rally around. A phrase that doesn't exclude anyone else, too, just that it seems that the society doesn't put much value on black lives in particular, so that must be corrected.
Again, if you want to apply this to the difference in describing things as "toxic gender-inity" vs "internalized miso-gendery", be my guest, that would be at least honest.
Don't give me disingenuous shit about how those two ways of speaking are actually the same or something.
1 Hammer_of_truthiness 2017-12-02
Slut shaming might be done to women, but in the only sociological study of "slut shaming" I found, the authors actually discovered that slut shaming was something done by WOMEN to other women.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/29/slut-shaming-study.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/05/28/slut_shaming_and_class_a_study_on_how_college_women_decide_who_s_trashy.html
Slut shaming is absolutely "toxic femininity", but you'll notice the massive fucking feminist blind spot when women do it to other women.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
Uhh.. The study of course found that women were slut shaming as they used a study of fifty women.
Yeah that's super not true.
1 Hammer_of_truthiness 2017-12-02
No, they talk about slut shaming as done by men. Very little attention is paid (in relative terms) to the much more common issue of women slut shaming other women.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
The only time slut shaming done by men is talked about more in feminist circles than slut shaming done by women is when sexual assault topics are discussed. I'm not sure what feminists you're talking to but your point is flat out not true.
1 ActuallyToiracse 2017-12-02
Allow me to help, Hammer. The story behind the classic double standard (casual sex is okay for men but not okay for women) is actually fascinating.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8346327
Up until 1993 the majority opinion of the double standard was that it revealed men's preference for control over female sexuality. Then this bomb landed. In every single study that found evidence of a double standard across 177 different data sets... women supported it considerably more than men.
It was a massive oversight of the literature for decades.
1 Hammer_of_truthiness 2017-12-02
Thank you Toirfam. This stuff actually aligns a lot with some other studies about male/female views on morality, men tend to be much more permissive (ie i dun give a shit) and women much more restrictive.
1 TherapyFortheRapy 2017-12-02
Masculinity isn't considered a good thing in women, but tards like you keep ranting about 'toxic masculinity'.
If toxic femininity isn't really a thing that exists, explain the following behaviors:
Women getting into arguments, then siccing their boyfriends on the person they disagree with. 'let's you and him fight'.
Women crying specifically to get their way.
Women creating overly censorious rules and regulations that they will be able to dance around easily, while saddling men with those same rules and regulations, knowing that men won't, making it easier to punish men for typically male behavior while allowing all typically female behavior to be outright rewarded.e.g., the way public schools have existed since the 'zero tolerance' era began.
Somehow, I think you'll just find a way to make that men's fault, too.
1 Sareed 2017-12-02
I mean society viewing masculinity a bad thing in women isn't necessarily a good thing that society does. Masculinity and toxic masculinity aren't really the same thing. There's also no need for name calling.
That requires a boyfriend that is willing to act as a foot soldier for someone else. The example doesn't really work because it's requirement is another person to do a thing of their own free will.
See above.
May I ask for specifics of what regulations women have created and passed that you are referring to?
1 Country-asshole 2017-12-02
It’s not a blind spot. It is very deliberate. It’s “patriarchy” that occasionally inconveniences some men (but it’s toxic masculinity women suffer the most), while it’s MENS SEXUAL VIOLENCE that OPPRESSES all women all the time and women are never complicit in that.
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
/u/Laurelai3301
I can't believe you just replied to /u/yellowstone10 without their consent. You literally just raped them. You have been reported to the admins, enjoy your ban.
1 ahbslldud 2017-12-02
men
existing
how could society go so wrong tbh
1 TinyJibble 2017-12-02
> Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward r/gender_critical being proven correct.
1 ahbslldud 2017-12-02
This but unironically.
1 youcanteatbullets 2017-12-02
This is why we need manocide
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
/u/Pflytrap
Excuse me? How are they supposed to tell you? Talking to people without their consent is sexual harrasment, you sick fuck. You have been reported to the admins for openly advocating sexual harassment. Go back to /r/incels, oh wait, you can't. Just fuck off.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-12-02
Flirting is haram.
1 Why_We_Need_Islam 2017-12-02
1 DrinkProfessionally 2017-12-02
/u/Pflytrap are you larping as a human being?
You think hitting on a women makes her fear for her life? do you live in somalia or something?
You think making anyone slightly uncomfortable for a brief period of time is sexual harassment? under what definition?
Are you at least aware that this hysteric rethoric doesnt help your points?
1 TherapyFortheRapy 2017-12-02
There is a very literal belief on the part of many women, that women (and only women) deserve to go through life without a single moment of discomfort. That means that they must never be physically inconvenience, that they must never be pressured to do actual work, that they never suffer a social interaction they don't want to have to suffer, and that their personal point of view must always be considered 100% objective, and never questioned no matter how much it conflicts with the views of other or objective reality.
1 DrinkProfessionally 2017-12-02
/u/FAstowaway
I am not trying to troll or be mean, but how do you suggest human beings ought to interact with each other? how should we say that we are attracted to someone else?
1 FAstowaway 2017-12-02
Sexual attraction will be forbidden in the coming revolution, and those who have sex will be first up against the wall. We will live only a single generation and then return to the earth as Allah (pbuh) intended. Insh'allah.
1 shallowm 2017-12-02
Confirmed as munafiq LARPing as a Muslim.
إن المنافقين في الدرك الأسفل من النار ولن تجد لهم نصيرا
1 FAstowaway 2017-12-02
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-12-02
/r/GamerJihazi
1 DrinkProfessionally 2017-12-02
/u/MilitaryBees
Dont you think the best possible scenario for everyone in this problem is to accept that we have a duty to communicate sometimes? Why not deal with whatever anxiety is making you be unnable to just say a polite " thanks! but i am not interested "?
I have said that, women have said that to me, everyone goes seperate sides, nobody is bothered by it as there is nothing to be bothered or be shy about. To me and to some women I have talked to it is even good, as it make you feel more confident and makes you feel better about yourself. It makes you feel more attractive too.
So seriously, where have you gotten all this negativity about flirting and sex in general?
1 DrinkProfessionally 2017-12-02
/u/P--S
Of course they are for real, and there are many of them in communities like ghazi, and they are one of the reasons outsiders with good faith and no desire to hurt others still reject and mock communities like Ghazi
1 DrinkProfessionally 2017-12-02
/u/mrsamsa
Hey mate long time no see
I feel like it has been too long since you shitposted here. How could you ignore your dearest sub for this long?
Anyway, that thread is exhibit one of why I think being a online feminist in certain communities is not for the best interest of men. Especially young men who might be isolating themselves more after reading the anxiety-driven people on that thread.
1 NRE_Everlasting 2017-12-02
Summoning a literaly literary kafka nightmare >mfw
1 nmx179 2017-12-02
u/Laurelai3301's apparent belief that it's "fragile masculinity" to disagree with the idea that women are so fragile they'll fall apart and die after a momentary social exchange is everything that ever needed to be said about that idiotic concept.
1 nmx179 2017-12-02
Excellent find u/djejfj; a truly amazing thread even by the standards of ghazi's known psychoses.
1 nmx179 2017-12-02
u/myscifilullaby stop trying to dishonestly niceguy your way into women's pants, it's absolutely creepy as fuck.
1 BumwineBaudelaire 2017-12-02
theorycrafting about human relationships from incel smartphone addicts never ceases to amuse
1 xjapxn 2017-12-02
Good hell, the thread they linked at the bottom is a paranoia-ridden hellhole
1 xjapxn 2017-12-02
/u/fuckincaillou, you're the first person I've seen with the chutzpah to keep using the "men are poisoned candies" analogy after Trump Jr. showed the world how much of a bigoted, illogical paper tiger it is. Hats off to you, 'cause you got stones, son.
1 FAstowaway 2017-12-02
It's extremely useful as a bludgeon in progressive circles though
1 GopherGus 2017-12-02
Treat women like you would any severely autistic child. Don't look at them and don't talk to them for fear of them breaking out into a tard rage.
Used to be that if you raised a kid that can't handle being spoken to, you locked them up in the disappointments room.
1 comebepc 2017-12-02
1 4ksNsp00ns 2017-12-02
Hey /u/MilitaryBees
Does it bother you that you're going to die alone because you couldn't work up the balls to say hi to someone? Is this why you take your frustrations out on those that aren't complete faggots?
1 MilitaryBees 2017-12-02
No.
1 DrinkProfessionally 2017-12-02
That is good actually
I think my life would be better if I was asexual too 🤔
More focus, less problems
Sounds good
1 King-Achelexus 2017-12-02
This is kinda amusing because the only people who listen to Dr. Nerdlove are women who don't get laid.
1 Mexagon 2017-12-02
At least they're in no danger of procreating.
1 alexmikli 2017-12-02
That sub really needs to fuck off.
1 wisty 2017-12-02
One of the big pieces of advice is basically hit on women in social spaces like bars or parties, not safe spaces like coffee shops or the subway. Because everyone knows alcohol and hook-ups have nothing to do with rape culture, right?
1 IAintThatGuy 2017-12-02
/u/Racecarlock when the kind of graphics card you own is a factor in the options you'll consider for a "social" life, you need professional help.