An... Interesting... article from the Australian Broadcasting Company, especially in light of the banning of a certain subreddit...

Head-Medium-3007 · 2022-04-30T01:47:44+00:00

More misandrist drivel, from the cesspool of lies and propaganda that is gender studies

BloomingBrains · 2022-04-30T05:11:48+00:00

Note: Below I say "you" a lot. Don't particularly feel like editing so let me explain that "You" =/ women. "You" = the author/people with a similar ideological mindset.

Dr Bruce Perry says that in reality, you cannot love yourself unless you have been loved, noting, "the capacity to love cannot be built in isolation".

People have been idiotically spouting "love yourself" to incels forever, and they've been rightly complaining about it just as long. Now that the same advice is being turned around on women, suddenly its problematic. Because "stuff only bad when girl sad", apparently.

Neoliberalism assumes women's lives are shaped by deliberate choices for which they, as individuals, are responsible.

Being responsible for self-love and self-healing only furthers the responsibility that women already shoulder for their health, well-being, careers, and relationships.

I know right? What kind of vile misogynist would think that women are fully capable adults who, like men, should be held responsible for their own lives?

Remind me who the conservatives are again?

Little attention is paid to the contexts that constrain women's choices.

Restrained choices? Welcome to my reality. Hope you have a jacket. Its pretty cold.

How to get a man to commit

I actually agree with the core premise of this section. Women should take more initiative. But its not men preventing them from doing so. All us guys who don't expect women to be stepford wives have existed all along. We were just overlooked.

Online dating, while positive in some respects, is a minefield for toxic male behaviour.

I'd pay anything to watch the author have to explain this on live television.

Modern dating advice often implies women can and should fix themselves, and their relationships. This creates feelings of shame, and is particularly harmful advice for the vulnerable women in our communities.

Once again, if you switched out "women" with "men", this would accurately describe what has already been going on for years. But people only care when women are affected.

And by the way, who is actually saying this? The mainstream narrative is that its us misogynistic lonely men with horrible personalities and entitlement complexes that are responsible for our own misery. You don't get to act like you're the counter-narrative because you're not. You're as mainstream as they come.

This entire article is just basically "we're going to say that what we're doing to to tear down men is actually what men are doing to us, and its therefore bad now".

Teaching women how to react effectively to emotionally dysfunctional behaviour may help women to cope, but it doesn't address the fundamental issue of intimate interpersonal relationships: safety.

Rather than upskilling women to deal with the harm they risk in dating men, the self-help industry should focus on male behaviour – not the reactions of women to this behaviour. Women need safety more than they need advice.

Ok here's the thing. You can teach "rape is bad" all you want, but the truth is, there are just evil men out there who don't care. Simply teaching them not to rape will never work. Most of us already don't want to rape women even without being told not to. Those that do want to will do it regardless. Thankfully, they are a minority, but they have been overfocused on, creating an unhealthy and damaging paranoia.

I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand for some women. Maybe its because postmodernism had brainwashed them into thinking that everything is a social construct and that people are just products of their environment. Under such logic, bad boys can be healed. But life isn't a trashy romance novel. They can't. The best you can do is equip yourself to avoid them as much as possible. Expecting men as a whole, without any personal ties to you, to somehow defend you from rape is an immature refusal to accept agency over your own life (and what irony that is, since feminism loves to talk about 'agency').

And by the way, horrible things happen to people of both genders. Things like war, plague, accidental death, suicide, homicide. Most of those at higher rates for men, too.

Lastly, I just want to ask if this problem could have anything at all to do with dark triad traits being a predictor of sexual success.

The most important dating advice the self-help industry can offer is for a male audience: do not harm the women around you.

Yeah...I'm sure that automatically attributing guilt to millions of men that never did anything wrong to you will never come back to bite you in the foot. And it certainly couldn't have anything to do with why you are in this predicament in the first place. Nope. Not at all.

"Teaching" women how to deal with the men they're dating is not the solution to the problems of modern dating and relationships.

Not putting responsibility in their own hands instead of blaming "the incel" certainly hasn't helped either, or else we wouldn't be here. So maybe try something different this time around?

Mateship is revered in Australia, yet male friendships are often devoid of vulnerability, openness, intimacy, and self-disclosure. This likely has to do with toxic expectations around masculinity that may manifest in emotional suppression and masking of distress, misogyny and homophobia.

Research has found male attitudes toward masculinity, feminism, and homophobia are predictive of date-rape-supportive attitudes and self-reported histories of sexual coercion.

Just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, aren't we? This part is what made me think "I could have written this as a parody article inside an hour if I felt like it".

TheHoff779 · 2022-04-30T00:40:33+00:00

This article from the ABC offers some commentary from feminist professor Rachel Hogg about social attitudes surrounding dating, and challenges some of the "women need to attract men" concepts. Unfortunately, it does this by following some uncomfortably familiar lines of logic about "We need to redirect the focus to male behaviour".

What do you all think? Interesting commentary on dating politics? Or another example of Nice Guys/Girls dumping all the problems with the dating game onto other people?

Dry-Pianist1853 · 2022-04-30T00:57:09+00:00

This article is a nice way to keep women confused.

Man_of_culture_112 · 2022-04-30T06:51:19+00:00

"Why is always women who must change themselves?" - there is so much to unravel in this title and post. It illustrates the push for male hyperagency by supposedly progressive feminism (remember the movement that says they help men) and the clear empathy gap between men and women. When we see the abundance of PUA's and dating coaches but we choose to ignore men's efforts.

quokka29 · 2022-04-30T01:11:11+00:00

Initial thoughts- This is a bit of a garbled article. It seems to jump all over the place. It lists a number of psychological difficulties associated with dating and then says that it effects women. When men can be just as effected by this. It seems to unnecessarily only focus on women. Which I don’t really understand the rationale for.

PsychoPhilosopher · 2022-04-30T04:39:57+00:00

Interesting to see someone so blatantly miss the obvious due to an inability to research any viewpoint other than their own.

Talk about 'Lovebombing' and 'Breadcrumbing' is immediately apparent as being on the receiving end of messages given to men.

Lovebombing is what you get when men internalise ridiculous expectations and put in unsustainable levels of effort at the start, running out of steam (or interest) further down the track.

Breadcrumbing is a parallel for "treat em mean to keep em keen". Women are just as frequently skittish about commitment, and just as likely to get bored. Is it any surprise that men who have faced this are slower to trust?

The ultimate answer is that feminism, in its usual way, deconstructed courtship rituals within our culture with no real plan to replace them. As an old adage says "never jump a fence unless you know why it's there"

In this case, the fences and structures were torn down, leaving the bull free to rampage and the paddock empty.

Peptocoptr · 2022-04-30T15:09:05+00:00

At least it says "toxic expectations around masculinity" instead of "toxic masculinity"... Aknowledging the good where I can find it

TisIChenoir · 2022-04-30T19:32:59+00:00

Because the emergence of the PUAs and their coaching doesn't emerge at all from a distinct lack of dating opportunities for men, thus creating a market for charlatans selling their miracle recipe for lonely men, by basically telling them to change every single thing about them and their behaviour.

I must be mistaken then. It's true, men are the gender having an easy time in dating...

LakiL_ · 2022-05-05T12:24:20+00:00

How can someone be so delusional? Every example she gave also exists for men. Wtf? Dating advice online is all the same.

Zinziberruderalis · 2022-05-05T23:42:41+00:00

The headline is a lie, as normal.

Ryunysus · 2022-04-30T02:08:23+00:00

The dating strategy sub was banned?

Title	An... Interesting... article from the Australian Broadcasting Company, especially in light of the banning of a certain subreddit...
Author	TheHoff779
Upvotes	29
Comments	20
Date	April 30, 2022 12:35 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/uezlnu/an_interesting_article_from_the_australian/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/an-interesting-article-from-the-australian.1113832 https://theredarchive.com/post/1113832

Comments