A double standard i’ve noticed with how a notable amount women react to online dating content directed at men vs women

KayRay1994 · 2024-03-21T04:27:03+00:00

I don't know if that amount is a minority or a majority, but i noticed a loud/large enough group of women actively excuse other women encouraging...

[–]AidsVictimPurple Pill Man 30 points31 points32 points 2 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]raldabosPurple Pill Man 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nopridewithoutshame 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE4 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you're just arguing a tautology.

Ah my bad I didn't mean to argue a tautology, just wanted to point out these women voted Trump out of their own free will, not because they're being beaten and pressured into it.

They might think that Trump stands for traditional family values, which places quite a lot of value and importance on women in families, and they feel that is the best way to have a healthy family. They might agree more with the conservative notion of femininity than the more liberal one. There's a bunch of possible reasons, the whole point is women made these choices of their own free will, so it's nonsense to blame men for Trump.

i think they are voting in men's interests bc they believe seal clapping for men will give them an elevated position in the patriarchy (google "Serena Joy")

I mean if it gets them the privilege of being stay at home mothers with paid expenses and without having to be drafted to go to war, can we really say it's such a terrible deal?

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

just wanted to point out these women voted Trump out of their own free will, not because they're being beaten and pressured into it.

i completely agree?

but i dont think they thought they were voting in women's interests.

I mean if it gets them the privilege of being stay at home mothers with paid expenses and without having to be drafted to go to war, can we really say it's such a terrible deal?

if that was a good deal no women would have ever become feminists

i feel like staying at home and being financially dependent is my version of literal hell. My sister feels the same way, she works and her husband is a stay at home dad of one kid who doesn't work. And he has grandparents next door helping him whenever he needs a break.

Sounds like a cushy life and my sister still views working full time in her blue collar job as the better end of the deal.

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

but i dont think they thought they were voting in women's interests.

Fair enough, whose interests do you think those women are voting for then?

if that was a good deal no women would have ever become feminists

Reality is more complicated than that. There are plenty of women who didn't want to become feminists for precisely that reason, and not wanting to be conscripted to go to war was a core issue for why many women didn't want the "right" to vote in England.

i feel like staying at home and being financially dependent is my version of literal hell.

And you are free to believe that and direct your life however you see fit. For some people that is a vision of heaven, for some people that is a vision of hell.

Feminism seems to believe being a financially dependent stay at home mom is a vision of hell, and seems hell-bent on forcing that opinion on women, whether those women agree with it or not.

I don't see anything wrong with it if things go well, I just think it's largely impossible due to financial reasons nowadays, and it refers back to the golden period of the American dream, which is an exception in historical terms, since most men and women have worked throughout history. The kind of work they did was different, but the only people who could afford to have someone stay home without working were the nobility and rich elites in society, up until post WW2 America. That was a blip in history, and it's likely never going to happen again at a large scale, barring extraordinary circumstances.

My sister feels the same way, she works and her husband is a stay at home dad of one kid who doesn't work. And he has doting grandparents next door helping him whenever he needs a break.

Sounds like a cushy life and my sister still views working full time in her blue collar job as the better end of the deal.

I honestly have nothing against that at all. It's a shame that most women are highly resistant to the idea of a stay at home father. It's also ironic that many mothers with stay at home fathers are outraged at the idea of giving him custody, alimony, and child support after divorce.

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminism seems to believe being a financially dependent stay at home mom is a vision of hell, and seems hell-bent on forcing that opinion on women, whether those women agree with it or not.

feminism acknowledges that this position is vulnerable and ridiculed and unsafe

its the same when men view it as heaven and do it, their rights should be protected the same as women who give up financial security for their family.

caring for others old and young is valuable unpaid or underpaid labor that we need to respect and compensate as a society or caregivers will burnout or choose not to do this work.

I don't see anything wrong with it if things go well,

well yeah

its when things don't go well that's a problem

It's a shame that most women are highly resistant to the idea of a stay at home father

no its not?

preferences aren't a "shame"

it's a shame that stay at home parents (men and women) don't have better access to their share of financial security in their families, but no one needs to enter into any kind of arrangement they don't want to.

I don't want kids and it's not a "shame" that i don't want kids and a husband to support just as i don't want to be dependent on a husband while raising kids. the whole idea is bad imo. i would rather be part of a community and offer my services and support as an auntie instead of a mom or dad.

It's also ironic that many mothers with stay at home fathers are outraged at the idea of giving him custody, alimony, and child support after divorce.

whereas men are not outraged over custody, alimony or child support?

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

feminism acknowledges that this position is vulnerable and ridiculed and unsafe

And that is the problem because this position can be vulnerable (but it largely isn't because of the laws passed around marriage and divorce), can be ridiculed (largely ridiculed by feminists), and can be unsafe (but no more unsafe than literally any other kind of monogamous relationship and arguably safer than many of the more non-standard relationships).

The problem is feminism has its own very narrow perspective on it that it treats as absolutely right and sacrosanct despite it basically just being an opinion, and then it tries to force that one and only correct opinion on everyone, and anyone who disagrees is defined as a misogynistic bigot.

caring for others old and young is valuable unpaid or underpaid labor that we need to respect and compensate as a society or caregivers will burnout or choose not to do this work.

Completely agree, we just also need to recognize the ton of unpaid labour that men also do, not just uniquely and exclusively looking at the unpaid labour women do and letting men out to dry.

its when things don't go well that's a problem

And it's a good thing the criminal court, the family court, and the divorce court all have women's back, as a result of laws passed in favour of women by feminism.

Men get none of those, if it goes wrong for men they're up shit's creek without a paddle and without support. Women arguably have it better than men in that sense.

preferences aren't a "shame"

And yet men who have a preference for hourglass shaped women are misogynistic by default. Women are allowed preferences as though it's their god-given right to prefer whatever she wants, but men aren't allowed to have preferences except for the non-misogynistic ones feminism allows men to have.

it's a shame that stay at home parents (men and women) don't have better access to their share of financial security in their families, but no one needs to enter into any kind of arrangement they don't want to.

Their share of financial security is literally guaranteed by law, what more is needed? To have a police officer present in every stay at home mother's house to make sure the husband gives her a credit card? His money is legally their money, and anything he does to prevent her from having access to their money is abuse and is illegal already.

no one needs to enter into any kind of arrangement they don't want to.

And yet it is women, and often feminist women, who constantly shame men into settling down and getting married. More often than not it is also women who pressure other women into having kids, but for some reason all this is blamed back on men.

FWIW I am 100% on board with people who don't want kids, there are too many people on the planet already, it's just a shame the people who generally don't want kids would usually make good parents, and the people who have tons of kids generally are not good parents :/

whereas men are not outraged over custody, alimony or child support?

Of course men are, it's just that when women benefit, they're happy and smug about it, but when men benefit from it, they're outraged. It's a perfect example of how feminism views equality as a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women, when equality benefits men, they get mad that women aren't profiting more.

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And that is the problem because this position

can

be vulnerable (but it largely isn't because of the laws passed around marriage and divorce)

okay so we completely disagree on this.

the ton of unpaid labour that men also do

would love to see a list of these things! (sincerely)

the family court, and the divorce court all have women's back, as a result of laws passed in favour of women by feminism.

no they don't

if a woman tells the court she is worried because her ex was abusive, she becomes more likely to *lose custody* than if she had kept his abuse a secret

in family court when men ask for custody, they get it more often than women.

Their share of financial security is literally guaranteed by law, what more is needed?

guaranteed how? which law?

california is a 50/50 state but i thought that was the most stay at home partner friendly law in the country? and that's just saying 50/50, not saying the stay at home partner should be privileged.

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

okay so we completely disagree on this.

Totally fair, what part do we disagree on? As it is I just know you disagree, but I don't know why or on what.

would love to see a list of these things! (sincerely)

Taking care of the trash, the recycling, the spiders and bugs, cleaning the gutters, cleaning and mowing the law, taking care of the trees, fence, and pool as needed, taking care of the car for maintenance, cleaning, oil change, sometimes low-level mechanical repair, dealing with mechanics and car salesmen, often it's more men doing taxes and managing the investments and long-term finances, cleaning the garage, literally risking their lives every single time they go on the roof to put up or take off Christmas lights, being expected to do home defence and protect the wife in kids in any dangerous situation, move the furniture and heavy stuff in the house, having to deal with her emotions when she wants to vent and ramble but doesn't want his input or his solutions and just wants him to sit there listen to her and enable her emoting at him, and more still, buying her flowers out of the blue, organizing dates for her, planning things for them together, being responsible for planning, initiating, and escalating romance at virtually every instance, and more

And all of these things men are expected to do all the time without complaint, and more often than not without any form of recognition or appreciation.

Being taken for granted absolutely is a killer in relationships, but for some reason as a society we only care when women are taken for granted and don't give a fuck when it happens to men.

in family court when men ask for custody, they get it more often than women.

This is the survivorship bias. Men are frequently told not to other because if they ask for custody they're more likely to lose the custody anyways, and lose more money on top of it. The men who do ask, are the 5% of men who have an ironclad case and can win.

if a woman tells the court she is worried because her ex was abusive, she becomes more likely to lose custody than if she had kept his abuse a secret

Do you have a source for that? I found this source, which points out that when there is a reasonable concern that a woman could be attempting to alienate the kids from the father, then that is treated with the severity it deserves.

Do you have any statistics?

guaranteed how? which law?

The law that declares that all marital assets are shared between the two adults. The law that guarantees that if the husband is hiding money from the wife, in the event of a divorce, half of that money he hid legally belongs to the wife, because they were married at the time that money was made.

and that's just saying 50/50, not saying the stay at home partner should be privileged.

And stay at home partners are entitled to more alimony by law to help support them until such time as they can get themselves back on their feet.

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

what part do we disagree on?

You said our laws make it so that it isn't a vulnerable position to contribute to a relationship through unpaid work at the expense of earning a paid income through a job (ex: giving birth/maternity leave and/or choosing lower paid work or stopping working to care for children while your spouse continues in their paid work uninterupted).

I disagree with this. It is a big reason why I never had kids (I would have to trust someone else to provide security for me).

Taking care of the trash, the recycling, the spiders and bugs, cleaning the gutters, cleaning and mowing the law, taking care of the trees, fence, and pool as needed, taking care of the car for maintenance, cleaning, oil change, sometimes low-level mechanical repair, dealing with mechanics and car salesmen

so nothing that is done daily and nothing that would affect a man's paid job/income.

Let's say you have no man and need help doing everything men typically do. A wildly liberal estimate for this is 5 hours of help a week. Let's also go to the top of the average for a handyman -- $80/hour. The most you will pay for this help is $400/week.

I actually do this. I am a single female homeowner with no DIY skills. I've had to hire a handyman twice in three years. It was 3 hours total, and $190 in cost (with the tip maxed out on TaskRabbit). I could easily afford this.

if you had to hire out the "women's jobs" in the home, cooking and cleaning daily and daily childcare would be cost prohibitive for most americans.

Cooking takes on average 45 min a day for people w families (so already 5.25 hours a week just for cooking, are men really doing 5 hours of lawncare and maintenance work every week?) I'm seeing $150-400/day plus the cost of food which seems like a reasonable range. That's $1050-$3150 per week depending on where you live and your tastes.

The average cost for a nanny in the US is $20/hour. Let's be generous and say your kids are already in school *and* you are able to get the kids up and to school every day on your own (a pretty difficult task). If your kids get off the bus at 3 and you get off work and rush to get through traffic to be home by 6, that's 3 hours a day of childcare. So $300/week.

Also if you had to pay someone to do pregnancy and labor for you, that's $100k (i think, without medical costs like the $3k you pay to the hospital for labor included).

I just don't see how these things are comparable.

If you're just saying men deserve to be acknowledged for their contributions to the home, I'm with you.

having to deal with her emotions when she wants to vent and ramble but doesn't want his input or his solutions and just wants him to sit there listen to her and enable her emoting at him,

you also said this, which hasn't been my experience, even my dad and my stepdad never did this for me, nor has a boyfriend ever done this for me

but it is party of a healthy relationship, which would go both ways, men have the same need to talk and be understood by their partner that women do.

buying her flowers out of the blue, organizing dates for her, planning things for them together, being responsible for planning, initiating, and escalating romance at virtually every instance, and more

i've also never had men do these things for me in a relationship, i would also assume in a healthy relationship this goes both ways. a lot of men show up to their own family events unaware of what their partner did to contribute.

i actually became a feminist at age 5 having never learned anything about feminism. i just looked at how the men and women in my family acted and knew it wasn't okay with me. men got to sit around and enjoy themselves while the women (all of whom had full time jobs) cooked, cleaned and served them.

this was not a family where there were jobs men did that women did not do. women disciplined the kids, paid bills, mowed the lawn, worked the farm, did the investing, planned everything. women were doing both gender roles while the men just did a small portion of the male gender role.

btw none of the women in my family were feminists. my grandmas worked the farm and had full time jobs and still seal clapped for their husbands "providing" by... doing less work than them.

This is the survivorship bias. Men are frequently told not to other because if they ask for custody they're more likely to lose the custody anyways, and lose more money on top of it. The men who do ask, are the 5% of men who have an ironclad case and can win.

then they are getting bad legal advice bc it is literally not true that they are "more likely to lose the custody anyway"

The men who do ask, are the 5% of men who have an ironclad case and can win.

except i just told you the true stat that women lose custody to men just by being honest that they were abusive

so how is that an "iron clad case" ?

The source i read this in is this book: https://ia600108.us.archive.org/30/items/LundyWhyDoesHeDoThat/Lundy_Why-does-he-do-that.pdf

"Family courts tend to be unaware of how important it is to children not to be exposed to the negative role modeling of their abusive father and to his hostility and contempt toward their mother. Regrettably, a growing number of abusive men succeed in using such claims of “parental alienation” to win custody or ample unsupervised visitation, even in cases where there is extensive evidence that the man has abused not only the mother but the children as well.

The reality is that a mother who attempts to restrict her children’s contact with the man who abused her is generally acting as an appropriate protective parent. She is also supporting healthy self-protective instincts in her children; children who are not supported or encouraged in this way to protect themselves from exposure to abuse will be at greater risk for accommodating abuse by others as they go through life."

unfortunately i couldn't find the specific quote in that book, so i also found an additional source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gender-identity/moms-who-allege-child-abuse-are-much-more-likely-to-lose-custody-study-finds/

The law that declares that all marital assets are shared between the two adults.

well thats weird since we all know a marriage where they dont divide their incomes 50/50

if a housewife goes to the police station and says her husband isn't giving her 50% of his paycheck, will they file a report?

The law that guarantees that if the husband is hiding money from the wife, in the event of a divorce, half of that money he hid legally belongs to the wife, because they were married at the time that money was made.

well yeah, you're talking about a man breaking the law by hiding assets during a divorce proceeding where they are trying to split assets. can't evenly split assets if the man is hiding assets, can you?

if you're saying all marital assets are always split 50/50, how can you say a man should be able to hide assets and not split them 50/50 at the same time?

And stay at home partners are entitled to more alimony by law to help support them until such time as they can get themselves back on their feet.

alimony is awarded to either gender in less than 10% of marriages

[–]ChocoOranges1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AdmirableSelection81 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nopridewithoutshame -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Balochim 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]caption291Red Pill Man I don't want a flair 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WilliamWyattDPurple Pill Man 38 points39 points40 points 2 years ago (106 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 23 points24 points25 points 2 years ago (76 children) | Copy Link

[–]WilliamWyattDPurple Pill Man 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago (71 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but if you can't prove anything but still think you're overwhelmingly disadvantaged you're just being a solipsistic sexist asshole. If you can't prove something you should side be cautious about making broad claims and be open-minded.

Just think about claims such as "women are the primary victims of war". There is no excuse for believing in such things.

And this kind of behaviour needs to be addressed just like Andrew Tate needs to be addressed. Women are raised to see themselves as the ultimate victims of society, even in those situations where they are privileged and where men are disadvantaged. Education is the best example of this, it's men and not women who are systemically discriminated against in schools and this is something that is actually proven.

Yet what do you see? Zero effort to address this besides blaming young boys for their teachers being sexist, barely any male scholarships for female dominated fields, and female scholarships for women in STEM and constant feminist rethoric that can only be described as gaslighting about how disadvantaged women are in STEM. Meanwhile studies actually show that if men were not discriminated against systemically, they would dominate STEM even more than they currently do because they are more interested in it and happen to be overrepresented in the extremes of the IQ distribution. Then when you want to find a job as a man in STEM you see companies and universities openly discriminating you because they want to reach female quotas with the justification that you were advantaged for being male when actually the studies show you were disadvantaged for being male.

Women just like men are responsible for what they believe. It doesn't matter if a western woman feels they are overwhelmingly disadvantaged in life, it simply isn't the case. We need to address this insanity of constantly making women be the sole victims of society because else no one is ever going to stop the Andrew Tate's of this world.

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Top_Efficiency5067 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's my conclusion after the conversation we had about Bell Hook's in the feminist thread a few months ago.

Am I wrong for thinking that? Were you actually open to changing your mind?

I quoted sexist passages from Hook's book, and your response to it was nothing more than "akshually this is not sexism" followed by a bunch of mental gymnastics you would never employ for the gender reversed versions of those quotes.

If you can't even identify obvious misandry right in front of you, whats the purpose of talking about it? Do you feel motivated to debate the prevalence of misogyny in the redpill to redpillers who say "it's not misogyny we are just describing female nature" as an excuse? That's exactly what you did in that conversation.

It's not possible to have good conversations with people who have an agenda that makes them unable to even observe what is happening in the first place.

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WilliamWyattDPurple Pill Man 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]caption291Red Pill Man I don't want a flair 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway164_3 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Savings_Builder_8449Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Savings_Builder_8449Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]throwaway164_3 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Away_Sea_8620Purple Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sorcha16Purple Pill Woman[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Away_Sea_8620Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WilliamWyattDPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway164_3 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Commercial-Way-1011Nondisposable Male -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

I didn't ask about happiness, I asked about a single historical example of an oppressor class that is in arguably worse shape than the people they oppressed. Were the slave owners worse off than the slaves they oppressed? Were the men in Greece and Rome worse off than the women they oppressed? Were the Persians and Turkish slave owners worse off than the slaves they owned? Were the Nazis worse off than the Jews they oppressed? Are the Han Chinese worse off than the Uighur Muslims they oppress? Are the Israelis worse off than the Gazans they oppress?

I will repeat the question again, is there a so gle example anywhere in history where the oppressor group is worse off than the group they are oppressing?

Because if there isn't, it seems to me the entire feminist dichotomy of men as oppressors and women as oppressed is severely flawed, or at the very least irrelevant in current times.

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

because you selected metrics in which men are doing worse rather than "power and money", the explicit goal of oppressing anyone

Feel free to choose any metric you like. Literally any metric, go for it.

by mental health standards? maybe. i imagine it causes your soul to die to own other people

Going by your answer, you are either being deliberately obtuse, or I'm not sure we're sharing the same reality.

by whether they could look in the mirror? maybe!

Kinda hard for 6 million people turned to ash to look into the mirror.

Still not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse, or are just that out of touch with reality that you think that hurt feelings are worse than the most horrible, degrading, dehumanizing, and horrific experiences men could have possibly come up with.

You must have had an extremely sheltered life for your feelings to be coddled to that extent.

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

Right, money and power. Most people at the top are men, but so are most people at the bottom. 75% of homeless people are men, and there are far more poor homeless men than there are rich millionnaire men.

The vast majority of women are comfortably in the middle between the CEOs and the homeless men. If I had to choose, I'd prefer to take the near 100% guarantee of a good life, rather than the 5% chance of a great life with a 30% of a terrible life.

Power is much the same.

You are committing the apex fallacy, looking at the top of the pyramid and seeing only men there.

You are ignoring the bottom of the pyramid, which is also almost exclusively men, and far larger than the top.

Plus, young women earn more degrees than young men, at a rate of 60% ish female student graduates to 40% male student graduates, which is a higher gender disparity than it was back in the 1960s, and on top of that young women, who are more likely to get into and graduate from university, also have access to a bevy of female only scholarships that male students don't have access to, to further boost their earning potential.

The end result is that unmarried young women are out earning unmarried young men.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90673368/women-now-make-up-almost-60-of-college-students-an-all-time-high

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/young-women-are-getting-richer-as-young-men-get-poorer-2017-04-20-16881139

But you're never going to hear feminists ever talk about these two, because it runs contrary to the narrative of women being eternal victims and men being evil patriarchal oppressors.

Any other metric you want to have a look at?

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Balochim2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Balochim2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Balochim2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Balochim2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Balochim1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Balochim1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Balochim1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

feminists literally talk about these things all the time? lmao its a sign that feminism is working, of course they are going to talk about it

Fair enough, many times I surprised feminists by telling them that women were the majority of univesity students, they aparently didn't know women passed the 50% mark years ago.

I will rephrase it then to say that you will basically never hear feminists talk about anything that negatively affects men in any way shape or form that suggests that men are victims who need or deserve help. More often than not women benefiting at men's expense is seen as a good thing, or men being victims is being used as a ploy to further the feminist agenda, without then giving a single fuck about the actual male victims they claim to care about.

i never meant that all men are wealthy and powerful, i meant that men hold most of the money and power in our society and the world.

No, actually. Most of the wealth in power in society is held by very few men, the vast majority of men have no wealth and no power.

Again, apex fallacy at play, feminism looks at the men at the top and mistakenly assumes that all men benefit or profit from that, when it is absolutely not the case. A homeless veteran does not in any way shape or form benefit from having a penis just like Jeff Bezos. It's assuming some kind of shared ownership of wealth or power across the entire male gender, which absolutely does not exist.

patriarchy is "everyone serves the 1% and the 1% gains compliance by dangling the carrot of everyone gets to oppress the people below them in the pyramid scheme.

What'S the difference between your patriarchy and capitalism, and if capitalism can explain 99% of what your patriarchy explains, why bother with the whole gender thing at all?

[–]Maffioze4 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you will basically never hear feminists talk about anything that negatively affects men in any way shape or form

feminists constantly, and i mean CONSTANTLY talk about how men are negatively affected by forced adherence to patriarchal masculinity ("boys don't cry" masculinity).

hard to expect men to be loving and caring to women and children when men cannot be loving and caring to themselves.

until men treat themselves better (because, for instance, their mother did not raise them to think crying, having feelings, being caring, etc were shameful) its stupid to hope they will treat us better.

women benefiting at men's expense is seen as a good thing

w/r/t college, imo men are less interested in education? in this sub lots of men put down education and think trades are better for people to learn. I don't think college = good or trades = bad, i think both are different paths that should be respected and have dignity, our society needs all kinds of people working together in order to function.

if men want to be 50/50 on college degrees, then that should be a goal. if some percentage of men are happy to not pursue higher education and work in trades, that's great too.

Personally, i would love to see everyone do lifelong education because that's important to me, but i have to remind myself that different temperments and personalities exist and people like to spend their time doing different things.

A homeless veteran does not in any way shape or form benefit from having a penis just like Jeff Bezos.

which feminists also talk about

What'S the difference between your patriarchy and capitalism, and if capitalism can explain 99% of what your patriarchy explains, why bother with the whole gender thing at all?

patriarchy, capitalism, and another thing we're not allowed to talk about here

if capitalism could explain it all, the other two wouldn't exist

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

feminists constantly, and i mean CONSTANTLY talk about how men are negatively affected by forced adherence to patriarchal masculinity ("boys don't cry" masculinity).

Yep, they pay lip service to men's issues to further the feminist agenda. Men's suffering is a useful tool to get men on board with the program, but I wouldn't be this upset if they spent even a tenth as much time actually trying to solve the issue, as they did talking about it and paying lip service about it.

After all, how many feminists point out it is mothers, not fathers, who have a boys don't cry bias? They're all for talking about the issues so long as it's to point out women good men bad, and to get men to help with women more in exchange for a promise that at some point trickle down equality will eventually somehow address men's issues.

But they're not the ones who will do it, they'll just commiserate and tell men to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps harder, and pat themselves on the shoulder for pushing men to solve their issues without women having to lift a finger.

hard to expect men to be loving and caring to women and children when men cannot be loving and caring to themselves.

And yet that is exactly what is expected of men under feminism. Hard to love yourself as a man when you're a patriarchal male bigot supporting patriarchy, unless you unconditionally obey and support the very feminists and feminism calling you a patriarchal male bigot.

until men treat themselves better (because, for instance, their mother did not raise them to think crying, having feelings, being caring, etc were shameful) its stupid to hope they will treat us better.

I agree.

And feminism will go right back to ignoring that inconvenient facet, and continue to blame men and push them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without an ounce of help, sympathy, or empathy given to them by women.

imo men are less interested in education?

I mean when education from the 4th grade up continually fails boys and treats them like defective girls, of course men are less interested in education. When women are less interested in science and engineering it's a national crisis and we have to help women, but when men aren't interested in education due to systematic pressure, then it's their own damn fault and they can get out of it on their own.

It's an odd double standard feminists have.

if men want to be 50/50 on college degrees, then that should be a goal. if some percentage of men are happy to not pursue higher education and work in trades, that's great too.

And if women don't want to be engineer, don't want to be scientists, don't want to be CEOs, and don't want to be politicians, that's great too right? And yet feminism pushes for 50%+ representation for women in all positions of power, and doesn'T give a damn about male representation.

which feminists also talk about

Be nice if they actually did something more than just paying lip service to it though.

if capitalism could explain it all, the other two wouldn't exist

Catholicism can "explain" reality, and yet scientology exists.

The other two can exist for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the truth.

Feminism is literally rebranded Marxism, replace proletariat and bourgeoisie + seizing the means of production, with women and men + seizing the means of reproduction.

The difference is that unlike the fallacious notion that men as a whole are a class, Marxism accurately depicts reality and can therefore actually deal with reality accurately. Feminism, due to flawed premises, cannot, and those flawed premises are at the core of what's wrong with feminism.

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I wouldn't be this upset if they spent even a tenth as much time actually trying to solve the issue

solving the issue is divesting from patriarchal gender roles

we can't force men to do this?

we can't force women to do it either.

how many feminists point out it is mothers, not fathers, who have a boys don't cry bias?

bell hooks has several books on this, i say it constantly in this sub that men are primarily socialized into the patriarchy by their moms, who abuse them into disassociating from their emotions.

women good men bad

i dont know any feminists who say this or who say women don't uphold and enforce patriarchy, especially with their children

Hard to love yourself as a man when you're a patriarchal male bigot supporting patriarchy, unless you unconditionally obey and support the very feminists and feminism calling you a patriarchal male bigot.

as opposed to what?

what is an example of how a woman would love herself according to red pill or whatever logic you follow?

I mean when education from the 4th grade up continually fails boys and treats them like defective girls, of course men are less interested in education. When women are less interested in science and engineering it's a national crisis and we have to help women, but when men aren't interested in education due to systematic pressure, then it's their own damn fault and they can get out of it on their own.

i'm all for improving free public education for everyone

And if women don't want to be engineer, don't want to be scientists, don't want to be CEOs, and don't want to be politicians, that's great too right? And yet feminism pushes for 50%+ representation for women in all positions of power, and doesn'T give a damn about male representation.

you want feminists to be in charge of everything? or do you want men to have some say?

Be nice if they actually did something more than just paying lip service to it though.

its an ideology not a political party? it would be nice if feminists solved rape (for men and women) too. there are lots of things i wish feminism would fix.

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

solving the issue is divesting from patriarchal gender roles

This is the feminist equivalent to "the solution is more Jesus in your life". It offers no practical solution and is a thought-terminating cliché..

bell hooks has several books on this, i say it constantly in this sub that men are primarily socialized into the patriarchy by their moms, who abuse them into disassociating from their emotions.

I am glad you say that, and I'll be happy to see feminists actually continuing bell hook's work rather than just citing it and doing nothing further with it. If the best example I can provide of men helping women is books published 20 years ago, with absolutely nothing to show for it since, it would rightfully be pointed out that this isn't nearly enough.

i dont know any feminists who say this or who say women don't uphold and enforce patriarchy, especially with their children

I've seen several on this very sub and on any other feminist sub that allows for debate and discussion. So now we have your personal experience and mine at odds to each other, and it gets us nowhere.

what is an example of how a woman would love herself according to red pill or whatever logic you follow?

I was pointing out how feminism has an extremely toxic perspective on men that tmakes it supremely difficult for men to love themselves, I wasn't making any comment on women loving themselves. Women have the body positivity movement, the feminist movement, and literally an entire industry of books, podcasts, yoga sessions, and everything else, to tell women how brave and strong and amazing they are.

Men largely just have ignorance with the occasional insult thrown in, and the only groups that openly celebrate or glorify men get called misogynistic and get shut down by feminists.

i'm all for improving free public education for everyone

I'm glad, then tell the other feminists that girls are doing fantastic and that schools have been failing boys for decades now. Be ready to be ostracized for saying that however.

you want feminists to be in charge of everything? or do you want men to have some say?

Men and women have some say, but feminism wants to wield large institutional forces to the benefit of women, often at the expense of men, in the name of equality. The problem is feminism treats equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women, and won't help male equality one bit. It's not mandating more men in child services or more men in psychological services, but it is mandating 50% female CEOs. It's not about equality, it's about empowering women, regardless of the cost or feasibility, and men can get lost.

its an ideology not a political party? it would be nice if feminists solved rape (for men and women) too. there are lots of things i wish feminism would fix.

I mean feminism first has to acknowledge that men are half of rape victims in the first place, and that feminists have spent a lot of time and effort deliberately easing male rape victims. This doesn't require being a political party, but I fear I'll be long dead by the time feminism gets around to acknowledging that.

[–]Maffioze2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am glad you say that, and I'll be happy to see feminists actually continuing bell hook's work rather than just citing it and doing nothing further with it. If the best example I can provide of men helping women is books published 20 years ago, with absolutely nothing to show for it since, it would rightfully be pointed out that this isn't nearly enough.

In reality Books only slightly addresses this while still indirectly putting the most responsibility with men.

Furthermore her books are filled with negative sexist stereotyping of men, racism, linking/naming everything negative in life about men, demonising men and misinformation.

Any person who isn't ideologue should come to the conclusion that Bell Hook's is a bigot when reading her books.

I applaud your efforts of trying to explain things but I'm honestly just so over these kinds of conversations. It's just insane how idealistically feminists interpret everything feminism is doing, it's like talking to religious folks. You can show them all the evidence/arguments in the world and they just don't care at all.

Men are the only group in the Western world who are supposed to be fine with people who are bigoted towards them being described as moral figures who actually want to help them, and then having to constantly debate whether hate against their gender is actually hate against their gender even though its extremely easy to see.

And they don't see why men are upset and checking out. The lack of awareness is just maddening.

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

literally what is hurting men is believing it is shameful to experience emotions

Literally what is hurting men is people shaming them and hurting them when they express their emotions.

What is hurting men more than the belief, is the active actions of other people, mostly women, who actively harm men for trying to express themselves.

Trying to get men to express themselves more, will only result in men being more hurt if we don't make it safe for men to express themselves first.

This would be abundantly clear if people actually bothered to listen to men and men's lived experiences, but feminism knows best, feminism knows men don't know what they're talking about, feminism knows men are afflicted by toxic masculinity, so feminism will save men by forcing the "real" solution men need, in direct opposition to what men actually need or want.

But feminism cannot ever get to that notion because under feminism men live in a world built by and for men, that does not and cannot harm men, so all the harm men face must come from within themselves or from other men, it could not possibly come from society in general of from women, because that would mean men are oppressed, and men cannot be oppressed.

It's not impossible to get men to open up, but it is significantly harder to make it safe for men to open up in the first place, and virtually impossible to get most feminists to understand the difference.

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except you're saying "if you just had more Jesus in your life everything would be better" and I'm saying "we don't need Jesus to make life better, everything that is better would be just as good without Jesus, and Jesus doesn't add anything to the conversation and instead brings in a ton of unnecessary baggage".

If you ask a dozen feminists what "divesting from the patriarchy" means, you're likely to get four dozen answers, a number of which would be self-contradictory. We can't even get everyone on board with one clear consistent definition of what the patriarchy is exactly, how we can recognize it and decide if a sciety or group is patriarchal or not, and what it would actually look like to have a non-patriarchal society.

Sociologists can do that because their definition of patriarchy is clear-cut and precise, but we can't do that with feminism because "the patriarchy" is ill-defined, unscientific, untestable, and therefore not even wrong.

We can't use the patriarchy to really guide us anywhere if we can't even know when we've gotten over the patriarchy. The patriarchy is the boogeyman, he's ever-present an everywhere and we always have to be on watch for it, but we hardly ever find any real or concrete evidence of it that can't be better explained by something else.

Maybe we agree in practice on what actions to take, but just because a scientologist agrees with me, doesn't mean I agree that scientology is the solution.

It's also ironic that you say I agree that everything would be better if we divested from the patriarchy, when I point out that the people who want to divest from the patriarchy, don't even understand the realities of the problem they're trying to solve because they're so blinded by their own self-righteous interpretation, and are going about it all wrong and are causing more harm than they are preventing.

If divesting from the patriarchy means listening more to men, then feminism is doing a shit job of divesting from the patriarchy.

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you think its complicated when it is very simple: we don't have to force individuals to fit into gender roles. gender roles are imaginary. what we think of as "manly" and "feminine" has changed throughout history, which is how we know there is no static, finite "role" for men or women.

I mean I agree.

The thing is though, it's far from the majority of feminists who want to abolish the gender roles that benefit them. They want to abolish the gender roles that restrict women, rightfully so, but then are more than happy to keep the restrictive gender roles on men.

It's very simple but what is simple is often not easy, and many feminists don't seem to have an easy time understanding that removing gender roles means women are going to lose a lot of privileges too.

could this sub agree on one clear cut consistent definition of what red pill is?

90% yes and it would still be more coherent than patriarchy.

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

are more than happy to keep the restrictive gender roles on men.

no men are undateable because of gender roles

men are violent because of gender roles

men are poor fathers because of gender roles

getting rid of gender roles would help men improve 100%, which is a self-interested reason feminists want to get rid of gender roles for men. we don't benefit from them.

removing gender roles means women are going to lose a lot of privileges too.

one thing men get confused about is that they think women are asking to be treated like men treat themselves and other men.

i am genuinely sorry y'all treat yourselves so poorly, and that's part of what i want to fix by getting rid of gender roles, but that is not what we aspire to.

we want men to treat us, themselves and other men like women treat other women.

we want equality "up here" not "down there"

90% yes and it would still be more coherent than patriarchy.

prove it then bc i don't agree.

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

no men are undateable because of gender roles

Disagree, there are men that are considered undateable because they are short, poor, or not fit enough.

I'm not saying there aren'T women who are also undateable because of gender roles, I'm just saying this is a problem men face as well.

men are violent because of gender roles

There's a pretty strong correlation between violence and testosterone levels. Gender roles may push some men to be more violent, but I'm wary of heading to the "men and women are identical blank slates until society imposes socially constructed gender roles on them" because it ignores a TON of biological realities.

getting rid of gender roles would help men improve 100%, which is a self-interested reason feminists want to get rid of gender roles for men. we don't benefit from them.

And the main reason feminists are interested in getting rid of gender roles is to get rid of the gender roles that negatively affect women. Most feminists don't care about male gender roles that don't harm women but do harm men, and many actively want to maintain gender roles that harm men but that women do benefit from.

There is a very sizeable amount of feminists who still want men to do the approaching and to pay for dates, for example.

Feminists don't seem at all to care about encouraging women to ask men out and to pay for them.

we want men to treat us, themselves and other men like women treat other women. we want equality "up here" not "down there"

In theory that sounds great but in practice feminists treat it like women are "up there" and deserve to be "up there", while men start "down there" until they prove they're not horrible human beings, then they earn the right to be "up there" with women, unless they lose the privilege and fall "down there" again.

I agree with what you say, I just don't see it actually happening. Feminism generally treats equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women, it rarely if ever goes out of its way to help men, or even to stop harming men.

prove it then bc i don't agree.

I mean I'm not sure what you want me to do to prove it, start a poll? The general tenets of red pill is that female nature is different from male nature and that men have been lied to. Wooing women, courting them, being nice to them, and buying them flowers, demonstrably works less well than being aloof, negging, being an asshole, etc etc etc. Women are constantly flooded with attention from men, so acting like just one more face in the crowd and being a nice guy gets you ignored, but being an asshole that stands out from the rest by not kissing the ground at her feet gets you noticed.

That's generally the core of red pill, then there's monkey branching, spinning plates, never growing too attached to women, and generally treating women as superficially as women treat men.

It seems that red pillers in general agree on what the red pill is and means, that it's not a movement or a philosophy, and that generally it's people outside the red pill who have a hard time understanding what it is, and frequently confuse and conflate the red pill with the black pill, with MRA, and with MGTOW.

There is some overlap but they are not the same.

In contrast, I don't think I've ever heard a clear and succint definition of patriarchy that could stand up to the fact that even if men are in power they often use that power to the benefit of women, and I've never heard a definition of patriarchy that was falsifiable so we could tell when we actually get to a post-patriarchal society.

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Disagree, there are men that are considered undateable because they are short, poor, or not fit enough.

then all short, poor and NAF men would be single if those were the reasons

There's a pretty strong correlation between violence and testosterone levels.

so.... the advice is to stay away from anyone with testosterone? or what?

Gender roles may push some men to be more violent, but I'm wary of heading to the "men and women are identical blank slates until society imposes socially constructed gender roles on them" because it ignores a TON of biological realities.

this book goes into detail about how gender roles make men more violent:

https://www.amazon.com/Violence-Reflections-National-James-Gilligan/dp/0679779124/ref=sr_1_1?

And the main reason feminists are interested in getting rid of gender roles is to get rid of the gender roles that negatively affect women.

i mean i think feminism is primarily interested in helping women, but no i don't think so.

women would be helped immensely by men divesting from the male gender role.

i've always thought this, even in high school i had a printed a feminist slogan that was about boys who grow up wanting to play with an easy bake oven but aren't allowed to bc of gender roles. i thought that was important too, that men could be their authentic selves.

There is a very sizeable amount of feminists who still want men to do the approaching and to pay for dates, for example.

feminists wanting men to contribute to relationships isn't feminists wanting gender roles for me lmao

i would prefer that men are loving and caring and contribute to relationships in the same way my female friends do, through mutuality and emotional support.

however, since men are unwilling to do that, i allow them to show their love through money and hopefully as they trust me, they will be able to do it in other ways.

what i'm not going to do, is say that since money is a male gender role and emotional support is hard for men due to gendered socialization, that its okay for men to do nothing in a relationship.

there has to be something and i would rather it not be money, but if money is all there is, that's a starting point for a 50/50 relationship.

Feminists don't seem at all to care about encouraging women to ask men out and to pay for them.

why would they?

men are happy to use women already. why give them more incentives?

and men are entitled to be worried about women using them. they should vet women more before asking them out, imo.

what i'm not going to do is encourage more people to extend more trust to strangers, when that system is not working.

i'd rather men not ask women out for dates until they trust the woman than encourage women to ask men they don't trust out for dinner too.

in practice feminists treat it like women are "up there" and deserve to be "up there", while men start "down there" until they prove they're not horrible human beings, then they earn the right to be "up there" with women, unless they lose the privilege and fall "down there" again.

imo you shouldn't treat strangers as if they are "down there" but having boundaries and treating people neutrally until you trust them is what both men and women should do.

in my ideal barbie world of feminism, there is no "down there". even the garbage collectors in barbie world were treated with dignity and were included as part of the community.

Feminism generally treats equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women, it rarely if ever goes out of its way to help men, or even to stop harming men.

wanting men to not be slaves to gender roles is going out of its way to help men

talking about how women uphold and enforce patriarchy, especially while mothering, is going out of their way to stop harming men

I don't think I've ever heard a clear and succint definition of patriarchy

can i ask if you've ever read a book about feminism?

because i could say this about something like "existentialism" and then i have to remember "oh i have never taken the time to read about it" so maybe that is the issue rather than a succinct definition not existing?

idk i also don't really get the definition thing bc gravity exists whether we call it gravity or something else. and what we would define it as has changed over the years (centuries) as we learn more about it. so having a static, simple, unchanging definition doesn't seem aspirational to me? idk i've just never gotten this argument i guess but i have also studied philosophy so i know when you drill down, people disagree about the definition of everything.

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

then all short, poor and NAF men would be single if those were the reasons

I mean those 3 groups of men struggle SIGNIFICANTLY in dating, so yes.

so.... the advice is to stay away from anyone with testosterone? or what?

So the advice is to recognize reality as it is to decide how to deal with it, rather than impose sociological theories on reality that don't actually map out to reality.

this book goes into detail about how gender roles make men more violent:

I don't doubt it does, but this is a 1997 book about prisoners, if gender roles make some men more violent, then this book is specifically about that group of men, not about seeing how gender roles in men in general, might make men in general more violent.

I agree it can and does make some men more violent because gender roles tell men when they should be violent to defend themselves, their honour, or their woman, because that's a very sensible position.

boys who grow up wanting to play with an easy bake oven but aren't allowed to bc of gender roles.

I mean I agree, but I'm pretty sure the biggest problem boys had in school then wasn't that they weren't allowed to play with easy-bake ovens. This sounds like a kind of basic entitled vision, like men saying "We love women and women deserve better, so we'll buy dishwashers for all women so they can have an easier time in the kitchen". The intention is good but there's a lot wrong with the execution and background thought process behind it.

If feminism cannot accurately understand what men's actual issues are, it has no hope of actually resolving them.

i would prefer that men are loving and caring and contribute to relationships in the same way my female friends do, through mutuality and emotional support.

I mean yes but this is assuming that the way women would prefer things to work, is the default correct way things should work, and that men are wrong for not doing things the way women want them to be done.

It kind of assumes the female perspective is best and the male one is incorrect.

It's also telling that feminism wants men to open up to women, but is almost completely silent on instructing women how to accept men's feelings and not turn those feelings against men. There are plenty of good videos out there of men who have been repeatedly hurt by opening up to women, and this issue goes completely unacknowledged and unaddressed, because feminism is completely ignorant of it, and therefore it pretends like there isn't an issue there at all, and men'S failure to open up is entirely their own fault.

I'm all for men opening up more and expressing their true selves more, but if women are going to use that to hurt and wound men when men are at their most vulnerable, then demanding men make themselves more vulnerable to women is only going to result in more hurt men.

Feminism should make it SAFE for men to be vulnerable, rather than just demand men be vulnerable and damn the consequences.

Feminists don't seem at all to care about encouraging women to ask men out and to pay for them.

why would they? men are happy to use women already. why give them more incentives?

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to start. To begin with you're blaming the actions of a minority of fuckboys back on the majority of men, most of whom would never do that.

Second, if women complain so much about being approached and harassed, that wouldn't happen often if men weren't forced to approach women, because if a man waits for women to approach, he is going to die single. If women actually approached men, showed interest in men, and "rewarded" men for being good men, then men wouldn't try and pester women so much, would feel more valued, wouldn't feel so bitter and angry at being constantly rejected, being denied empathy, and being told it's all their own fault, and maybe we'd see women actually understanding just how hard and difficult it is to put yourself out there and approach strangers in the hope of starting a relationship, rather than just shitting on men who dare to approach them when they don't want them to.

But again all this boils down to "female perspective is 100% correct and male perspective is unimportant", the very thing I'm telling you repeatedly that feminism gets wrong almost every single time whenever it talks about men or men's issues.

talking about how women uphold and enforce patriarchy, especially while mothering, is going out of their way to stop harming men

Is feminist talking about it to resolve the issue, or is it paying lip service to it, by mentioning it and doing nothing about it afterwards?

Paying lip service: an avowal of advocacy, adherence, or allegiance expressed in words but not backed by deeds

Where are the deeds?

can i ask if you've ever read a book about feminism?

No book per se, though I have "will to change" and want to read it. I unfortunately haven't read a physical book in years (mental health didn't help) but I have read lots of articles, a few on the philosophy of feminism.

Is there a particular book you could recommend for an accurate definition of and explanation of patriarchy?

[–]apresonly1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean yes but this is assuming that the way women would prefer things to work, is the default correct way things should work, and that men are wrong for not doing things the way women want them to be done.

idk where you got that i think men are loving and caring from but i live in the real world and i dont think men are or aspire to be these things. they don't value them.

so 🤷‍♀️

I leave them alone

not sure what else i can do

men are wrong for not doing things the way women want them to be done

i dont think they're wrong necessarily, but i know i don't thrive when men run things their way, i am too sensitive and feminine. i'd rather be alone in a world that feels healthy for me than be with a man in a world that feels unhealthy for me.

It's also telling that feminism wants men to open up to women, but is almost completely silent on instructing women how to accept men's feelings

feminists talk about this all the time

Here's a book on it that is widely discussed on feminists social media:

https://www.amazon.com/Will-Change-Men-Masculinity-Love/dp/0743456084/ref=sr_1_1?

I'm all for men opening up more and expressing their true selves more, but if women are going to use that to hurt and wound men when men are at their most vulnerable, then demanding men make themselves more vulnerable to women is only going to result in more hurt men.

this is a genderless problem

To begin with you're blaming the actions of a minority of fuckboys back on the majority of men, most of whom would never do that.

nope

its not just fuckboys who would accept a date and/or continue to date and/or sleep with a woman they don't actually like

self-proclaimed non-chads in this forum talk about it all the time that they would or do things like this.

Second, if women complain so much about being approached and harassed, that wouldn't happen often if men weren't forced to approach women

men aren't forced to do anything

are you really saying that the men who harass women are unaware they are harassing women? there are no men who intentionally harass women? no men who can't take no for an answer (not saying only men do this)? no men who are coercive when asking women out?

this kinda goes against your "its only fuckboys who treat women bad" statement.

If women actually approached men, showed interest in men, and "rewarded" men for being good men, then men wouldn't try and pester women so much

if women have to reward men into being good men

how can women be good women without men preferring good women to stacey?

good women aren't "rewarded" with men

"female perspective is 100% correct and male perspective is unimportant",

nothing i think is 100% correct, idk where you are getting this from

glad you have the will to change (which i also mentioned above). I think that's a good place to start. i almost feel like learning about human development is more important than reading about feminism bc it gives you the "why" feminism is important -- because raising children (and treating ourselves) only with "tough love" masculine values doesn't work. Children won't reach emotional maturity. Adults won't have the self-compassion necessary for resilience. I was never taught this growing up, my family was very masculine values only (stoic, only positive feelings and sometimes anger are allowed, no crying, no being gentle with others or yourself, suck it up and move on).

On this, there is a 101 book and a 401 book by the same author depending on how deep you want to dive in:

101: https://www.amazon.com/Drama-Gifted-Child-Search-Revised/dp/0465016901/ref=sr_1_1?

401: https://www.amazon.com/Your-Own-Good-Child-Rearing-Violence/dp/0374522693/ref=sr_1_1?

and this is very unfortunately gendered, but this is a great book about separating out healthy tough love and abusive messages. the author does clarify that both men and women are abusers and both men and women are victims of abuse, but yeah, terrible title: https://ia800108.us.archive.org/30/items/LundyWhyDoesHeDoThat/Lundy_Why-does-he-do-that.pdf

it changed my perspective a lot though, i thought all the behavior he describes as abusive was normal "tough love".

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoDanaOnlyZuuINo Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaway234974 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Here's the way I look at it sometimes:

What is the most extreme indication that someone has gone through too much or carried too much weight? Like what's the most severe reaction you can have to struggles of life? I think most people would agree that it's suicide. It's the choice of people who have run out of road. Their experience has been too much, they have too little hope, and they just can't do it anymore.

Men kill themselves 3x more than women. The people for whom life became too much are overwhelmingly men. What else could this mean about the male experience? Hell I look like the most privileged man out there (I'm not) and I've come dangerously close to going this route. My oldest friend just killed himself in December. He was 31.

It's not that every man has it harder, it's that the ones that do have it really hard and nobody cares because everyone believes men have all the privilege and advantage. People are basing their assumptions on the men who have it better than them. It's the apex fallacy. And when privilege is discussed, it's attributed to their gender instead of the million other things PLUS their gender. So Joe Blow has to grow up in a world where he is assumed to have everything going for him and as a result is not given any sympathy or support. He gets dragged by society with the rest of his gender (you'd be surprised how rarely people are just "nice" to boys or men) while working a shit job (literally 10x more men die in the workplace) and probably not having great luck with women. And if he screws up, there's no safety net. It should come as no surprise that 2/3 (even 3/4) of homeless people are men. And to make things worse, everyone will assume it's his fault. I mean we know this, men are viewed to have hyper-agency because of the patriarchy narrative. Nobody worries about men with terrible lives because it's just assumed they had everything at their fingertips and fucked it up. It's no wonder men are so easily radicalized these days, it doesn't take long before they've got nothing to lose.

I know women have their own version of this, but I think everyone is more aware of and sympathetic to women's struggles; we've been hearing and learning about it for decades now. I also suspect that women think the good parts of their life are just the normal human experience and assume men get all that and more. Being a woman comes with consequences, but I think it also positively influences their "normal human experience" more than anyone explicitly recognizes, women or men.

Anyway, I hope that gives a bit of insight. Again, I know being a woman isn't a cakewalk either. We're all in the trenches. Honestly I think everyone would be happy to call it a tie if men's issues were ever engaged with in an affirming way.

[–]cromulent_weaselPurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]serpensmercurialisNo Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Savings_Builder_8449Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Savings_Builder_8449Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Savings_Builder_8449Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DertrossRed Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]serpensmercurialisNo Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolfloveyesBlue Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]nopridewithoutshame 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolfloveyesBlue Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoJackfruit29651 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nopridewithoutshame -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]justforlulz12345Jester Pill / Misanthropilled 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nopridewithoutshame -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]justforlulz12345Jester Pill / Misanthropilled 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nopridewithoutshame 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TP_Crisis_20201 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WilliamWyattDPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TP_Crisis_2020 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nopridewithoutshame 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TP_Crisis_2020 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nopridewithoutshame 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVEPurple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I had a talk with a woman about the differences in communication like that. In guy circles you can make your point forcefully and be an asshole about it, and men can recognize you are right even if you are being a dick about it.

There is no such thing in female circles apparently. Being a dick makes you wrong, and saying things that are factually true is meaningless compared to saying things that feel right and emotionally validate one another.

Men care about the truth, because by and large we have to deal with it and we die if we don't do it properly.

Women care about social standing and feelings, because by and large that's the biggest problem they have to deal with, they are either far less likely to die and far more likely to have people physically protect and defend them, so they care more about being emotionally right than being factually right.

When you get them alone with nobody else to judge her and no intra-group politics to worry about she'll tell you what her true thoughts actually are, but when women are in groups they'll say whatever doesn't offend the others and most aligns with other women's beliefs, to win social standing points.

Combine that disregard of the truth whenever it conflicts with feelings, with the huge female in-group bias, and you end up with men realizing that women in groups act far more like a monolith and a hive mind than men do.

[–]TP_Crisis_20201 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]waffleznstuff30Blue Pill Woman 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think online dating content is trash on both ends.

For women: If he wanted to he would. If a man doesn't do XYZ for you he doesn't care or is low effort and not serious about you. You have to be in your feminine energy (whatever the hell that is) if you are in your masculine you will chase men away. Don't date a broke man. Men lie! Men cheat! Getting stood up! Don't show too much interest it scares them off. Don't text back too soon be mysterious (whatever the fuck that is)

For men: Red Pill. Women only want this and this so it creates helplessness if a man isn't that. If she does this she's a 304. If she has male friends she's to not be trusted. Women just have to settle! Women only want the top percent of men! Only hot guys treat women bad!!!

It's just trash and rage bait on both ends. Everyone is so preoccupied with not getting screwed over. That they actually block connection because there's such a fear of getting screwed over. Connection involves vulnerability and authenticity. How can you be vulnerable if you are looking for any sign of a red flag. There's no nuance or healthy conversations just extremely polarizing opinions on each side. So it keeps people apprehensive and always waiting for the other shoe to drop. I think thats partly why dating is such a mess that it is now. Is we crave connection want connection and love. But are so hyper vigilant and skeptical of people and their intentions that we block it. We have to be vulnerable to connect. We have to show up authentically if we want to connect. But if we are dating so detached from each other because we are expecting the worst we won't connect and go through the motions.

I think online dating content is the worst thing that has happened in modern dating. It's made everyone really hostile and on edge where we are supposed to try and find love.

[–]CraftyCoolerBlue Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that it's just reflection of western culture - we want to control everything and experience only good things. World should spoil us - we really believe that we deserve to have it all. We want to have full control of our health, appearance, image, emotions, life, other people - and when it turns out that we do not have control, the panic mode is on and we get angry. We are rarely interacting with thigs that are hurtful or irreversible - especially young people, we do not live with our grandparents so we do not experience death or serious suffering, we are not forced to make peace with such things. It's the same with being vulnerable - broken heart is a real thing, it hurts, but you cannot experience love without the risk of rejection or some period of suffering that you ultimately have to accept. You cannot experience love without sacrificing something - we look for perfect match but it's a pipe dream, there are only regular flawed people everywhere.

[–]SignifyingNothing5Pillip Marlowe 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As a man leaning left and blue, I still see some of what you are referring to, OP. But I think part of it is the demographic here.

It seems that the women on PPD are frankly more functional on average than the men. We often have a dynamic where a relatively inexperiened (dating and life) and often frustrated man is getting advice or maybe pushback on some odd ideas from a more experienced woman. I think the men often envy the experiences the women have had, and it's really difficult to manage your own envy and it's really tough to be the target of someone's envy. Add the baseline slight distrust men and women often have for each other and those conversations are pretty doomed.

So at least here is it really apples to apples to describe the way the women above respond to less functional men who often bring some vitriol to the conversation to the way those women respond to other women who they share more with, are attacked less by, etc.?

[–]TheAvocadoSlayerNo Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]optimuscrymez 12 points13 points14 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SlowEffective8146Red Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolfloveyesBlue Pill Man 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]flipsidetrollNo Pill woman 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]funfacts_82Bro Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Would you believe that some are trying to understand men and their problems?

Define some. But yeah i guess a very tiny percentage of women actually do.

Making such an outlandish claim based on zero evidence

We all read what women post here. Its outlandish to suggest this isnt the majority.

But anyone who believes they know exactly someone’s experiences and intentions without any information, is literally showing a mental problem.

No you! /yawn

You could actually learn something that changes your entire mindset.

I would say the majority is trying but its hard when you have feminists literally suggesting this is a woman hate sub and then proceed to insult men collectively in the next comment and others outright saying misandry isnt as bad as misogyny.

It happens on a daily basis so i am pretty comfortable in saying that most of these women are in fact mentally ill.

[–]wolfloveyesBlue Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sadsad0088Pink Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolfloveyesBlue Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolfloveyesBlue Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wolfloveyesBlue Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AFuzzyMuffinPurple Pill Man -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AFuzzyMuffinPurple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soul_vaccinePurple Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfiniteMagnets 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apresonlyFeminist Woman 🌹 karma is my boyfriend 🌹 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]N-Zoth 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (78 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salt_Mathematician24Blue Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salt_Mathematician24Blue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You can't use a definition without using observations. By that logic anyone can define themselves as moral while still doing immoral things.

Feminism's focus is equality of the sexes and undoing structural patriarchy

If that was actually the case then they wouldn't push against actual gender equality this often, they wouldn't demonize men, and they wouldn't blame men for the evil in the world even though they can't prove it. The patriarchy it claims to fight against isn't even remotely connected to a clear empirical definition. We could live in a hypothetical world where women had all the power and privileges and feminists would still call it a patriarchy because the concept exists merely inside their own heads and has become completely disconnected from what is actually happening in the real world.

[–]Salt_Mathematician24Blue Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It isn't a strawman boogeyman. Its based on reading countless of books/studies/papers. What is actually a boogeyman is the patriarchy you believe in.

What is more accurate is that your idealistic view of feminism doesn't actually align with the actual actions feminists have taken but that you can't accept this for some reason. You refer to the definition which describes what feminism should ideally be, but that's simply not what it is in practice.

Its also quite bizzare to act like its feminists themselves who are the sole ones to decide on the meaning of their movement, as if they can be considered capable of doing an unbiased judgment of what has essentially become a part of their identity. Its like asking a Christian the meaning of Christianity, they will probably give a meaning way more positive than what the meaning of Christianity actually is.

Just because someone claims they care about gender equality does not mean they actually do and if someone claims to be about gender equality yet acts in complete contrast to it then they are nothing more than a bunch of liars and manipulators. Whether its because they are consciously lying or unconsciously engaging in self-deception.

I also don't use tumblr, I don't engage in conservative circles, I'm progressive and I don't even talk to people who are truly conservative. Talk about strawman boogeymans.

[–]Salt_Mathematician24Blue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Idk where you live but I can't remember a single moment in my life where being anti-feminist was popular. In fact the second you critisize it you're called all kinds of names regardless of whether you're saying the truth or not.

realised that I wanted equality and understood that the patriarchy is a real statistical, global and historical structure.

Well this highly depends on what exactly you mean by that but if its the most commonly used definition by feminists then no this is neither real, statistical or global. Maybe historical at best but you can't say anything meaningfull if you're using a framework that doesnt care about empiricism.

And if you actually want to understand why I have a problem with this consider the following question. Have you ever seen a feminist make a clear list of things that make society be a patriarchy? Have you ever seen a feminist clearly define what it would take for them to no longer consider society to be a patriarchy?

Because I have never ever seen something like that and what this means is that feminists will never think that the fight against patriarchy is over regardless of what society actually looks like. They refuse to incorporate societal changes into their frameworks, or to test them at all with empirical evidence. They are still using almost the same worldview as they had in 1970 meanwhile Western society has completely changed since then and there is a complete blindspot towards the privileges women enjoy in 2024.

An example of this is what I discussed in another comment, how feminists approach gendered issues within the education system, something that is particularly relevant for the age group that is currently being influenced by Andrew Tate. They completely gloss over the fact that studies find boys and men being discriminated against everywhere from a very young age onwards, lobby against male scholarships in female dominated fields, and instead attempt to channel all the attention towards women in STEM. And I'm not even saying women face no sexism in STEM, but all those men in STEM already faced discrimination throughout their whole schooling career before they even picked STEM, with certain studies suggesting that the gender imbalance in STEM would be even larger had this discrimination not occured. And after all of this, society tells them they are privileged, artificially keeps them out of certain studies by allowing lower scoring women in instead, and by openly discriminating against them in the job market by vacatures openly stating they are looking to hire female candidates regardless of your credentials. I'm pretty confident that if you as a woman experienced this all you would also be upset about it, and maybe you even have, maybe you have been a math teacher in a conservative school and weren't taken seriously or respected whatsoever, I don't know. Do you see anyone take the concerns of these boys and men seriously? Quite the opposite you're told you must be a misogynistic asshole for being upset about this, and are then alienated by anyone who isn't conservative. And that's when people like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson have an easy prey to indoctrinate.

And this is a problem because it results in mens's issues not being taken seriously, not being understood properly, etc. And its insulting, its insulting because feminists themselves seem to be completely oblivious to how condescending and biased they are being towards men's issues. Your "patriarchy harms men too" isn't as real, objective or truthful as you think it is. Its a very ideologically biased reading of reality yet most feminists pretend they are merely saying the truth. They aren't.

[–]N-Zoth -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Then maybe do something to address the environment that makes this possible? Pretty much every person I have seen whining about Andrew Tate has been part of the problem and they never admit to it. The self-righteousness is just saddening to see.

The only solutions I have seen are "block young men from social media" or "we need to deprogram young boys" which shows you exactly why Tate becomes popular in the first place. Why would any boy trust those people when they are this biased against them? Why do boys and men need to be deprogrammed but when girls and women see men as predators, consider themselves as the ultimate victims regardless of the evidence, and portray bias against boys and men because of feminist indoctrination we do nothing. In fact it's worse, this gets openly celebrated instead. Boys often experience teachers treating them differently to girls, and being disliked by them. Is it really that surprising they look for messages that appear positive even though they are toxic?

No one is interested in acknowledging or fixing the harm constantly negative feminist messaging towards boys is doing. No one is actually trying to understand the context in which this is happening, instead we blame the symptoms and boys themselves. Which is exactly why they go to Andrew Tate in the first place, we blame boys and men for their problems but don't actually want to help them. But then you see people being like "OMG an entire generation is being ruined" meanwhile only a few minutes earlier they made a misandrist claim such as "oh girls are just better than boys, that's why they outperform boys in education" and somehow they are so dense that they can't see they are contributing to the problem.

[–]Adventurous-Fox-62Purple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]N-Zoth -6 points-5 points-4 points 2 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]N-Zoth 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]N-Zoth 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The existence of gender roles does not require society to be a patriarchy. This is a classic motte and bailey argument. First insist that patriarchy is about gender roles to make people agree, then switch to "society privileges men and women have it worse" as if these two beliefs are remotely the same.

The first part is true, the second part is objectively unprovable when both men and women experience so many different advantages and disadvantages that can't be easily compared to eachother. This kind of anti-intellectual attitude of claiming women have it worse without proof leads to misandrist claims such as "women are the primary victims of war" and it being considered acceptable to discriminate against men based on unproven justifications.

Yet you don't seem to think men have any valid reason to be upset about such things.

[–]N-Zoth1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze3 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]N-Zoth1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze4 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]funfacts_823 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tms793 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Adventurous-Fox-62Purple Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]funfacts_82Bro Pill Man 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adventurous-Fox-62Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]funfacts_82Bro Pill Man 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salt_Mathematician24Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adventurous-Fox-62Purple Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salt_Mathematician24Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adventurous-Fox-62Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Salt_Mathematician241 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Adventurous-Fox-622 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Salt_Mathematician241 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Geselshaft2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Geselshaft1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]naomiduskNo Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]naomiduskNo Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]naomidusk1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wolfloveyesBlue Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Aywae 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]naomiduskNo Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]naomiduskNo Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]naomiduskNo Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_41853 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shenanigans38 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SignifyingNothing5Pillip Marlowe 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]caption291Red Pill Man I don't want a flair 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maffioze25M non-feminist egalitarian 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The difference is the patriarchy as a system is real, and I do think the terminology could improve as it isn’t fully representative, but we do live in a society molded by and upheld by social beliefs that literally defined many patriarchal social structures - even then, the frame of which we look at things is through a default “masculine” lens, whether it be the role women assign themselves or that they’re assigned from men or whether it be what men assign each other, or what others (men or women) assign men as well - for example, the reason why women win most child custody cases is because there is a bias towards women being better parents, because under patriarchal systems they’re expected to be homemakers. Or the difficultly men have expressing their emotions, it is because men are expected to act cold and emotionless because of patriarchal expectations.

[–]UpbeatInsurance5358Purple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Charming_Parking_302 -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Charming_Parking_302 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Chair28No Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Chair28No Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_4185 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Chair281 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pretty_Raccoon_41851 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Chair282 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UpbeatInsurance5358Purple Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

“a small minority” in the sense that there is no single big figure, but videos and pieces of content do still get millions to tens of millions of views. I feel like “well the manosphere is bigger” isn’t a valid reason here because the manosphere is called out constantly (and also defended constantly - discourse seems to focus on it almost entirely - and to a point i do get it, the manosphere is awful in its own right, though i don’t think it should act as an excuse)

I also don’t think my post is whataboutism, as I am not taking away from any manosphere criticisms or am I trying to deflect when a manosphere issues is brought up. I also have not and will not stop calling out the manosphere, and I feel like for this to be whataboutism I have to be deflecting, and I am not doing that at all.

[–]nopridewithoutshame 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KentuckyCriedFlickin1 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]campskills211 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TP_Crisis_20201 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EulenWatcherEgalitarian feminist ♀ -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Professional_Chair28No Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Professional_Chair28No Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wtknightBlue-ish Gen X Slacker - Man -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AstronautExisting230 2 years ago* [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]KayRay1994Man[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AstronautExisting2301 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shenanigans38 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WesleyFRM 2 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shenanigans38 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WesleyFRM2 points 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WesleyFRM 2 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AstronautExisting230 2 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WesleyFRM 2 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AstronautExisting230 2 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WesleyFRM 2 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AstronautExisting2301 point 2 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	A double standard i’ve noticed with how a notable amount women react to online dating content directed at men vs women
Author	KayRay1994
Upvotes	36
Comments	266
Date	March 21, 2024 4:27 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1bjy515/a_double_standard_ive_noticed_with_how_a_notable/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/a-double-standard-ive-noticed-with-how-a-notable.1513137 https://theredarchive.com/post/1513137

Comments