[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]hauswyfetechno 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]hauswyfetechno 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Koffing 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What is the point of categorising your behaviours into "masculine" and "feminine" anyway? What good does it do?

Human beings denote and categorise. That’s what we do. That's how we identify phenomena, create language, organize our thoughts, better understand the world, acquire knowledge and advance. That's what good it does.

The only reason why feminists want to deconstruct and stop this human tendency around the use of “masculine” and “feminine” is because they believe it undermines women’s power and threatens their equality, by enabling differentiation between men and women. They are not interested in truths and reality on this matter. As far as hard core feminists are concerned, science, biology and observation can go to hell if it challenges their erroneous and disingenuous theory that masculine and feminine tendencies are social constructs and have no basis in biology. Their goal is to protect and empower women, not to seek the truth.

[–]hauswyfetechno 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hauswyfetechno 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Be specific. You're speaking in vague metaphysical terms, I want a concrete and tangible example. Else you could use the same line of argument to defend literally any category no matter how arbitrary or absurd.

A specific would be the very fact that we recognize tendencies specific to men (masculine) and tendencies specific to women (feminine). Of course, these are overwhelming tendencies, not absolutes. The concepts of masculinity and femininity are really just by-products of observed differences between men and women, rather than attempts to externally impose arbitrary standards on men and women out of thin air. From here, we are curious to investigate the reasons for these differences, which, as biological beings, compels us to explore biological possibilities, from which we discover cognitive and physical biological differences between men and women, usually attributable to the effects of testosterone on the embryo in the womb and during the resulting human’s life. Significantly, women exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone in the womb, exhibit more male or masculine characteristics. Naturally, they are in the minority and will still not have been exposed to as much testosterone as your typical man.

These explorations have enabled us to uncover many things that have and could have future implications for how we understand and navigate the world around us, such as the reasons for differences in behaviour between men and women, the reasons for different outcomes between men and women, the different responses of men and women to different educational approaches and stimuli, the different approaches of men and women to issues of morality and ethics, the different effects of drugs and substances on men and women, the different approaches to sex etc. The recognition of these and many other identified differences, as based in biology, will enable us to make more informed decisions on issues of health, social policy, educational practise, work practise, law and many other areas.

Checkout the award winning documentary series (Hjernevask), the Institute of Arts and Ideas debate and the Agenda debate below, to get an idea of how observed differences between the sexes have led to many important scientific discoveries, and how they help us make more informed and better decisions.

Hjernevask (Brainwashing): The Gender Equality Paradox

Institute of Arts and Ideas: How Men and Women Think

Agenda: Gender and the Brain

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]monster_straponsadomasochistic beta35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]monster_straponsadomasochistic beta17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StickItInTheToilet 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SipsSparklingWater 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]trpobservereats ass9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prodigy2throw#Transracial4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElCthuluIncognito0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]monster_straponsadomasochistic beta0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

Who determines what is normal or correct in non-factual matters?

Consensus among groups via transmission of norms. I personally think asserting that something is childish is an opinion that can be latched onto socially in a group setting, and if enough people agree it creates a (and only one) consensus (among many others).

I think that's okay, bc I trust my idea of child-vs-adult is healthier than most. A lot of people be stupid up in hurr.

And, besides, it will be checked democratically anyway in my country, and doesn't play against any voters (who make the decisions, all of them are adults), so it doesn't even feed into minority oppression either.

Other groups will make their consensus, too, and those groups will duke it out over and over again, and decisions will be made.

Also, men and women are different and there's nothing wrong with that.

Never said there was. But in regards to what this person considered being a "real man", I'd say it's one of my bare minimums for considering someone an adult.

Though, sometimes I think men and women being different creates way too much drama, and we'd be better off acting as complete individuals and deciding on our own amounts of masculinity and femininity (or perhaps also incorporating behaviors that some wouldn't even know how to categorize). Based solely on personality, not biological sex and perceived roles.

If any woman needed an entire group consensus of "womanhood" or "femininity" to feel like her own femininity was valid, I'd consider that childish and "not a real adult", too, unless they had some kind of in-born intellectual deficiency.

The more I think about it, I might give like... an 18 to 24, maybe 25-year-old a pass for this (considering it a "young adult" thing), and trans and nonbinary people, since they're probably having gender identity crises to some degree when they come out due to newly-emergent rejection from others that they didn't have to deal with before.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Who determines what is normal or correct in non-factual matters? 
Consensus among groups via transmission of norms. I personally think asserting that something is childish is an opinion that can be latched onto socially in a group setting, and if enough people agree it creates a (and only one) consensus (among many others).

I think that's okay, bc I trust my idea of child-vs-adult is healthier than most. A lot of people be stupid up in hurr.

And, besides, it will be checked democratically anyway in my country, and doesn't play against any voters (who make the decisions, all of them are adults), so it doesn't even feed into minority oppression either.

Other groups will make their consensus, too, and those groups will duke it out over and over again, and decisions will be made.

Norms are fine, but anything too prescriptive and too intrusive can quickly become contentious and oppressive. Human hubris is often at risk of assuming that humans know more than they do, making them very prone to error. Power also corrupts and any faction that gets the upper hand is liable to approach despotism if left unchecked. The other issue is that the majority is often wrong. I would even say usually wrong, given human ignorance, the higher profile of the majority view and the tendency of the ignorant masses to congregate around it. This can lead to a tyranny of the majority and the extinguishing of dissident but correct voices, if freedom of expression is not protected. Much admirable progress has come from these voices. There is also the fact there is often no right or wrong, just different preferences and predilections.

So as you can see, there is a lot to navigate and it is prudent to be humble, flexible and tolerant on matters or norms, in as far as adopting such an approach does not endanger people’s safety, freedom and rights.

Also, men and women are different and there's nothing wrong with that. 
Never said there was. But in regards to what this person considered being a "real man", I'd say it's one of my bare minimums for considering someone an adult.

Though, sometimes I think men and women being different creates way too much drama, and we'd be better off acting as complete individuals and deciding on our own amounts of masculinity and femininity (or perhaps also incorporating behaviors that some wouldn't even know how to categorize). Based solely on personality, not biological sex and perceived roles.

If any woman needed an entire group consensus of "womanhood" or "femininity" to feel like her own femininity was valid, I'd consider that childish and "not a real adult", too, unless they had some kind of in-born intellectual deficiency.

Yes, but differences can have implications for what is considered normal. Feminist have complained of male standards and men have complained of female standards. That’s why diversity, reasonableness and tolerance should be amongst our considerations when arriving at norms.

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Norms are fine, but anything too prescriptive and too intrusive can quickly become contentious and oppressive. Human hubris is often at risk of assuming that humans know more than they do, making them very prone to error. Power also corrupts and any faction that gets the upper hand is liable to approach despotism if left unchecked. The other issue is that the majority is often wrong. I would even say usually wrong, given human ignorance, the higher profile of the majority view and the tendency of the ignorant masses to congregate around it. This can lead to a tyranny of the majority and the extinguishing of dissident but correct voices, if freedom of expression is not protected. Much admirable progress has come from these voices. There is also the fact there is often no right or wrong, just different preferences and predilections.

Nowhere in my argument did I mention anything resembling unchecked despotism. That's a gigantic leap of logic to even think it's relevant to bring up totalitarian control when someone simply mentioned a simply personal opinion, especially after I tried my best to point out the multiple checks and balances that would ever come into play if I politicized that particular opinion.

I'm not going down the rabbit-hole of Suddenly The Expression Of This Opinion Begs The Question Of A Slippery Slope To Totalitarianism.

I'm not doing it. It's a tired argument and it makes no sense unless you live in a failed, illiberal democracy. I live in one that's close to that, but I'm not advancing those slippery slope argument unless evidence surfaces that we're completely illiberal rather than just a shitty "managed" democratist corporatist state.

We're garbage, but we're not such trash that we need to be entertaining these doomsday scenarios bc of a stranger expressing an anonymous, disjointed opinion that isn't even that popular.

That’s why diversity, reasonableness and tolerance should be amongst our considerations when arriving at norms.

Nowhere in the expression of an opinion on the Internet is any implication of a lack of {hashtag_}"Tolerance" or reason. I'm only intolerant of adult children being considered mature when they're not mature.

That doesn't take away their rights. It just puts them under heightened scrutiny. Just as anyone has the right to place my words under heightened scrutiny if they want to.

If there's no holds barred, and no standards, you no longer have tolerance-- you have nihilism and utopianism.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I find them a bit of a leap, to the point where they'd only be important in an authoritarian regime. I don't think we're so lost that one opinion from a shitposter like me is dangerous

I don’t think that they are a leap. We are actually seeing the tensions play out currently on several levels across liberal Western democracies, in a cultural war where issues of free speech, political correctness, feminism, male rights, globalization, immigration, legal rights and many other concerns are competing for our attention.

You have free speech battles taking place on university campuses and in society, where people feel silenced and threatened by orchestrated campaigns of mob rule and ostracization, often for fairly innocuous acts, if they express themselves in a manner that is deemed politically incorrect or sufficiently insensitive by the regressive left.

You have the growth of the manosphere, in response to the powerful and pervasive feminist lobby that in promoting gynocentricism and women’s rights, has sougt to silence dissident male voices, has adversely affected male freedoms and safety, and has spearheaded the erosion of men’s human rights.

You have the Brexit vote, in response to the imposition of the globalisation agenda of the elites and the silencing of legitimate concerns that were not getting an airing, because they were unfairly stigmatized as racist and not progressive.

You have the Trump election, which was a result of a combination of all of the above, as well as several other factors, and blindsided the liberal elites who couldn’t see it coming in their echo chambers which prioritise concerns about offensiveness and identity politics over the love of free speech and personal economic sustainability.

You may not be feeling the squeeze of these forces, but a lot of other people are and their numbers are growing. Oppression does not simply come in the form of an authoritarian regime. As I said before, a tyranny of the majority in the form of popular, unjustified and aggressive intolerance of alternative opinions or groups can also be very oppressive to those affected. That’s what often happens when the ascendant group, almost religiously, believes that what they think is correct and is beyond question. They would rather silence and smear dissent, than calmly engage it in debate. That’s just human nature. Eventually, the growing frustration of being silenced and marginalised will burst free and find alternative outlets if they are not all completely shut down.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If Trumpism and Brexit and the "manosphere" are the natural result of what you're calling "oppression", there should be even larger populist movements from women and minorities bc they would be wayyyyyyyyy more "threatened and targeted" than whoever you're talking about.

I think they're a majority-- they've always been a majority-- and they're just throwing fits bc people haven't been taking their bullshit as much as before.

Brexit and Trump’s victory were anomalies, upsets if you like. The bookies and the polls all predicted the opposite, but even underdogs win sometimes.

Neither Brexit nor Trump’s victory were the result of a monolithic base of supporters, but both options presented rare opportunities for certain sentiments amongst voters to manifest themselves in a big way. The opportunity was taken in both cases. Normally, such sentiments have to languish in the margins, away from the blue pill dominated mainstream world, in anonymous and obscure corners of the internet, such as the manosphere. This cohort of views do not enjoy majority status. They did not win the popular vote in the US election and, worse, they are hardly heard in the mainstream media, hence its shock at the two results. Nevertheless, they are trying to state their case and fight back in various ways. Voices that promote women and minority causes don’t need to seek protection in anonymity in this way and are part of the mainstream discussion.

For me, this is not so much an issue of identity, as one of free speech and maximizing the scope for free expression, while reducing the attendant threat of incarceration, physical harm, malicious defamation, unreasonable banishment, overbearing censorship and risk to livelihood. It’s about enabling a diverse range of views to be expressed and heard in the mainstream, without hysteria or punitive retaliation. No person or faction has a monopoly on the truth, so it’s important to hear different challenges from a variety of perspectives. These days, there is so much presumption, tribalism and hypersensitivity, that people don’t construct or listen to arguments any more. They choose or are indoctrinated into a particular side, then they regurgitate its script unquestioningly and try to punish the other sides by any means necessary, fair and foul. That’s why a, red pill, lefty like me is confusing to some people. I don’t fit their all or nothing, black and white script. There is no nuance in their perspective or room for a miscellaneous approach to politics.

So, I'm someone who prioritizes free speech over the right not to be offended, which means I'm against things like hate speech laws, which are nebulous and encroach upon personal opinion. That’s not to say that I encourage or welcome offensiveness, just that I recognise its subjectiveness and don’t think the reality or prospect of it is so onerous that we should threaten free speech by making certain "offensive" opinions or comments imprisonable offences. I think that being offended is less of a concern than being physically harmed, smeared, losing your freedom or losing your livelihood for something that you said. Of course, harassment is a different issue and should not be confused with hate speech, which with some readings can be as innocuous as simply asserting the belief that one does not believe transgender conversions make a person become a complete member of the sex they transferred to.

Being threatened and targeted with smears, loss of livelihood, violence, imprisonment, censorship campaigns and exclusion from public and publically funded platforms, by self-appointed overseers of thought and speech, for expressing an opinion, is being silenced.

Sources? Examples?

Here are some sources and examples.

Practice of no platforming. (Risk factors: Exclusion from public platforms. Censorship. Smears. Loss of livelihood.)
Hate speech laws. (Risk factors: Imprisonment. Loss of livelihood. Censorship. Smears.)
EU proposal to ban anti-feminism and recognise it as hate speech. (Risk factors: Imprisonment. Loss of livelihood. Censorship. Smears.)
New EU proposal to stamp out hate speech online. (Risk factors: Censorship. Imprisonment. Loss of livelihood. Smears.)
UN Commission proposals to clamp down on vague idea of “cyber violence against women”, with sanctions. A “cyber touch” being equated to a “physical touch”, with Anita Sarkeesian proposing that harassment also be seen as the “day to day” rude comments that most people who post content online get to some degree, such as “you suck” or “you’re a liar”, not just what is currently considered illegal. (Risk factors: Censorship. Imprisonment. Loss of livelihood. Smears.)
Nebulous misogyny law proposal in UK. (Risk factors: Imprisonment. Loss of livelihood. Smears. Censorship.)
University of Toronto violent protest and smearing against Warren Farrell and attendees. (Risk factors: Violence. Censorship. Smears.)
General violence and intimidation tactics. (Risk factors: Violence. Censorship. Smears.)
Silencing of Dr. Janice Fiamengo at Ottawa University. (Risk factors: Censorship.)
Gregory Alan Elliott vs. Stephanie Guthrie. Man taken to court, under threat of imprisonment, for little more than arguing with a feminist, but under the pretence of harassment. (Risk factors: Imprisonment. Loss of livelihood. Censorship. Smears.)
Tim Hunt firing, after overreaction from feminists, for misrepresented and light-hearted joke. (Risk factors: Loss of livelihood. Smears. Censorship.)
Petition that smeared Cassie Jaye and her movie, The Red Pill, and got it canned by the cinema that was first going to screen it. (Risk factors: Censorship. Loss of livelihood. Smears.)
Dr. Jordan Peterson’s fight with "compelled" speech, which legally forces the use of non-binary pronouns, under risk of penalty. (Risk factors: Censorship. Loss of livelihood. Imprisonment.)
Firing, smearing and police reporting campaign orchestrated against well-known Youtuber, Thunderf00t, because he disagrees with and argues against feminists. Saga 1. Saga 2. Saga 3. Saga 4. (Risk factors: Loss of livelihood. Smears. Censorship. Violence.)
Another firing because a feminist, Adria Richards, overreacted to a harmless joke. (Risk factors: Loss of livelihood. Censorship. Smears.)

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Brexit and Trump’s victory were anomalies, upsets if you like. The bookies and the polls all predicted the opposite, but even underdogs win sometimes.

Blatant misrepresentation. Trump's victory was within standard deviations. Pundits just exaggerated his chances bc punditry is a sham.

Neither Brexit nor Trump’s victory were the result of a monolithic base of supporters, but both options presented rare opportunities for certain sentiments amongst voters to manifest themselves in a big way. The opportunity was taken in both cases.

False equivalence. The only thing revolutionary about Hillary Clinton was her vagina-- I can't fathom any incentives other than that, and the people who wanted any other incentives than that badly enough voted for Sanders.

Normally, such sentiments have to languish in the margins, away from the blue pill dominated mainstream world,

Our "world" is not even remotely dominated by feminists or even non-feminists who are simply feminine. Masculinity is enshrined in power structures-- masculine people who are screwed over economically are just wildly over-reacting to propaganda and nutpicking.

False equivalence to make yourself sound like you're unbiased right before you blatantly misrepresent the entire WORLD just highlights how you're trying to pass off your extreme bias as somehow more objective.

Voices that promote women and minority causes don’t need to seek protection in anonymity in this way and are part of the mainstream discussion.

Probably bc they're more aligned with scientific fact that can be easily assessed by simple numbers: White males represent most of the power-structures, regardless of their messaging.

Feelings are not fact. I'm not going to tiptoe around ignorant people.

It’s about enabling a diverse range of views to be expressed and heard in the mainstream, without hysteria or punitive retaliation.

Anyone can currently retaliate. They just won't win those cases as much in certain states or in academia. Big deal-- academia is pretty small, and barely a quarter of our nation even finishes university. That's an issue with capitalism and competition-incentives, not Democrat or Republican.

That’s why a, red pill, lefty like me is confusing to some people. I don’t fit their all or nothing, black and white script.

No, but you're still waaaayyyyyyy off about how power currently functions in any nation with a voting system.

Both sides can commit censorship, and Red Pill as a community has gone completely toxic and echo-chamber'y. It's a terrible, tainted resource and a camp of indoctrination.

Both-Sider'ism shouldn't involve excusing echo chambers-- they're still echo-chambers.

And one echo chamber is much larger-- they just excuse themselves by saying "But Mainstream Media!" and then do the same shit that pressures (SOME) mainstream media outlets toward being more careful with their speech.

So, I'm someone who prioritizes free speech over the right not to be offended,

The simple fact that you can't tell the difference between being oppressed and being "offended" is the fatal flaw in your worldview here.

That’s not to say that I encourage or welcome offensiveness, just that I recognise its subjectiveness and don’t think the reality or prospect of it is so onerous that we should threaten free speech by making certain "offensive" opinions or comments imprisonable offences.

That has nothing to do with Red Pill. They use that as an excuse to be assholes and go too far in the other directions.

Yes, assholes can end up tanking people's careers.

That's not an excuse to form a cult on the Internet.

I think that being offended is less of a concern than being physically harmed, smeared, losing your freedom or losing your livelihood for something that you said.

Except when power-structures exist-- and persist, and resist change from minorities as a reflex-- in which what you're calling "feeling offended" actually is "feeling oppressed" bc they're actually oppressed.

No-holds-barred "free" speech will only function to keep those with less power enslaved. Giving people some recourse against that is good-- not saying that punishment should exist outside of getting fired, but reparation should be given as a choice to all so that class action can fight against powerful assholes with prejudice.

Sure, some people will get caught in the crossfire, but as long as they still have the option of fighting it in numbers, it doesn't bug me that someone can get fired for making an off-color joke.

Especially if they work as a public face for their company, or are publicly associated with their company in some way. If they don't want that to happen, they need to work in the background and not advertise their job affiliation to strangers on the Internet.

Practice of no platfor...............

...............ctors: Loss of Smears.)

None of this justifies Red Pill ideology (they shouldn't use these NutPicked examples to justify themselves). Or Blue Pill (they shouldn't use the examples of whoever they're fighting against as political weapons, either).

I don't see what any of this has to do with women gaining more power, bc they do NOT have commensurate power to men by any means.

What I see is a lot of anger that other males would dare say "Your hyper-masculine attitude is problematic, gain some balance."

And other males who probably run and organize these class actions. That's not feminism-- that's dudes politicizing "feminism" for their own political and social gains.

To blame the sex/gender minority in the binary tribalism ("men" and "women") for the actions of people taking advantage of their frustrations... that's just frigging bogus dude. Maybe women are getting desperate bc power structures are still obsessively masculine?

Why isn't TRP levying these objections specifically to men's co-opted "fourth wave" feminism? Why are they so reductive and lie about the power women have?

Retaliation co-opted by bureaucracies filled with dudes is not "feminism"-- it's just mostly-liberal mostly-White mostly-dudes taking advantage of femininsm and objectifying their grievances just like liberals co-opt every minority's grievances.

Women have the power to retaliate. And they're demonized for doing so.

When (the stereotypical) "femosphere" (who probably don't actually represent most English-speaking populations) get frustrated with their grievances, they use dirty tactics to oust individual workers.

When (the stereotypical) "manosphere" (who are also probably an exaggerated fringe on the Internet) get frustrated with their grievances, they elect Donald Trump by gaming algorithms and shaming and shitposting people outside of the website-of-origin for whatever they're complaining about. Or they organize death and rape threats.

I'm gonna go ahead and say the manosphere is much more capable of doing more damage to others here on the Internet.

TRP is a lie factory that eschews the truth in the opposite direction of TBP. They also claim to be non-political, so nothing going on politically in the world should be a justification for their echo chamber.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 1

Brexit and Trump’s victory were anomalies, upsets if you like. The bookies and the polls all predicted the opposite, but even underdogs win sometimes.
Blatant misrepresentation. Trump's victory was within standard deviations. Pundits just exaggerated his chances bc punditry is a sham.

It was an upset. Plain and simple.

False equivalence. The only thing revolutionary about Hillary Clinton was her vagina-- I can't fathom any incentives other than that, and the people who wanted any other incentives than that badly enough voted for Sanders.

Who’s talking about Hillary Clinton? I’m talking about Brexit and Trump.

Our "world" is not even remotely dominated by feminists or even non-feminists who are simply feminine. Masculinity is enshrined in power structures-- masculine people who are screwed over economically are just wildly over-reacting to propaganda and nutpicking.

False equivalence to make yourself sound like you're unbiased right before you blatantly misrepresent the entire WORLD just highlights how you're trying to pass off your extreme bias as somehow more objective.

Feminism and gynocentricism have powerful voices in the Western world, not to mention the fact that men bend over backwards trying to appease and accommodate women. Women can pursue any course men do and have the added benefit of men transferring most of their wealth and resources to them anyway, as fathers, husbands, lovers and via state taxes.

The fact that you have a few elite men running things at the top, doesn't mean that they care one iota about the ordinary men below them. Historically, they have exploited them as much as anyone else, more so even. There’s no loyalty to strangers, based on a male identity. The evidence actually shows that men care more about women than they do about other men.

Probably bc they're more aligned with scientific fact that can be easily assessed by simple numbers: White males represent most of the power-structures, regardless of their messaging.

Feelings are not fact. I'm not going to tiptoe around ignorant people.

The fact that you have more white faces in positions of power, doesn't benefit the poor white faces who are struggling to make ends meet. The white people above, are not trying to pull up the white people below. They’re doing what is expedient and what will give them the most power and money. Human beings are primarily self-interested and myopic.

There’s also some research out there that shows poor white boys are the most disadvantaged and get the worst start in life. At the end of the day, everyone is just human and each has their own cross to bear. If your life is crap, having some people in power with the same skin colour as you or who are the same sex as you, is of little consequence. You’d rather your life wasn't crap and no one in power looked like you. Also, people looking like you doesn't entail they will represent your interests. In any case, in the Western world, people are free to vote and pursue power if they choose. Women comprise more than 50% of the population and other less populous groups are free to organise, field candidates for office and vote for people who most represent their interests. The issue is really access to education and having the opportunity to acquire knowledge. Women are at no structural disadvantage here and do very well in education, but around 80% of women, across the Western world, prefer not to work full-time. If that remains the case, you’re always going to get a disproportionate balance at the top, given around 80% of men prefer to work full-time.

As you say, feelings are not fact. Neither is perception, reality.

Anyone can currently retaliate. They just won't win those cases as much in certain states or in academia. Big deal-- academia is pretty small, and barely a quarter of our nation even finishes university. That's an issue with capitalism and competition-incentives, not Democrat or Republican.

My point is that retaliatory politics is unproductive for citizens, who would be better served if there was greater concentration on the issues and fewer kneejerk reactions to opinions.

Academia is hugely important, as our primary source and driver of knowledge. What academia disseminates into the population has a huge ripple effect. Feminism’s success in obtaining a foothold in the universities for its advocacy, is a big part of how its narratives have come to dominate our media. The agenda setters and opinion makers typically go through university before they adopt those roles. As Noam Chomsky has often said, universities are great tools of indoctrination and train the manager class that keeps the rest of the population in check.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It was an upset. Plain and simple.

Not a reason to lie about the models by claiming it was some sweeping victory when it was within standard deviations on most models.

Feminism and gynocentricism have powerful voices in the Western world,

You're mistaking loud and public with "powerful". In spite of their move closer to the public, they're not anywhere near as powerful as phallocentrism and masculinism.

Not to mention the fact that men bend over backwards trying to appease and accommodate women.

I don't know any man who does that. Unless they're trying to please their partner, and in those cases it goes both ways.

Women can pursue any course men do and have the added benefit of men transferring most of their wealth and resources to them anyway, as fathers, husbands, lovers and via state taxes.

No, they literally don't do that unless they choice to, and "state taxes" go to much more masculine systems than feminine systems.

The fact that you have a few elite men running things at the top, doesn't mean that they care one iota about the ordinary men below them.

More than half of them care about traditional gender roles in my country. It's written into their platform year after year after year. And they were already "Winning" before this year. So this notion that Trump was a cry from the oppressed is garbage.

It was backlash against loss of unearned power, not against loss of opportunities.

Our economy favors men and masculinity. It gives women and feminine people side-scraps and roles that are undervalued and paid less.

Historically, they have exploited them as much as anyone else,

No, they've exploited lower social classes, and then exploited feminine people in all of those classes, even their own higher classes, and create a bottleneck Good Ol' Boys Club.

The evidence actually shows that men care more about women than they do about other men.

Because we taught men how to conquer, and only a few men got to actually conquer, but they continue to police each other for showing any kind of emotion (and freak out when traditionalist women continue this brainwashing).

Men in the developing world are not oppressed by women. They oppress themselves. That's not discriminatory-- it's intermale dominance and feminism already addresses this. But they see the word "feminine" and get scared, or they nut-pick Internet Feminists and miss the message.

The fact that you have more white faces in positions of power, doesn't benefit the poor white faces who are struggling to make ends meet.

It does allow people to succeed if and only if they're White-normative (and masculine-normative). That's eurocentric patriarchy.

The white people above, are not trying to pull up the white people below. They’re doing what is expedient and what will give them the most power and money.

Yes, continuing to be toxic and masculine will continue to win them power and money.

There’s also some research out there that shows poor white boys are the most disadvantaged and get the worst start in life. At the end of the day, everyone is just human and each has their own cross to bear. If your life is crap, having some people in power with the same skin colour as you or who are the same sex as you, is of little consequence.

It's not about being the same sex. It's about whether you're perceived as masculine enough or not.

You’d rather your life wasn't crap and no one in power looked like you.

Not really. It's pretty obvious that I stand less of a chance when less people in power are gay, even as a White dude.

You're blatantly ignoring what most oppressed voices have ever said: It does matter. Just bc White dudes can't figure that out unless they're hugged by Richard Spencer these days, doesn't mean it's not true.

The reason their is no "White community" to draw their identity from (outside of fringe "identitarians" on the Internet), for example, is bc White people run society (imagined community) so they don't have to establish explicitly-White communities in their own local areas. Instead, they establish implicitly-White communities and fail to see that they're doing that.

Invisible identity. Same happens with dudes. Bc if they were truly oppressed, they'd be able to make a better, more organized case for it by now. Women managed to do it-- why can't men without it becoming an angry joke full of speculation?

Also, people looking like you doesn't entail they will represent your interests.

When you will vote for them, they will respect your social interests and try and goad you into voting for policies that are of their economic interest and not yours.

In any case, in the Western world, people are free to vote and pursue power if they choose. Women comprise more than 50% of the population and other less populous groups are free to organise, field candidates for office and vote for people who most represent their interests.

And they will get cut down and judged much faster if they aren't White dudes. Double standards, dogwhistles, identity politics, etc.... If enough people enact those prejudices, it bottlenecks your progress, unless you're a masculine-typical man, and unless you're White.

The issue is really access to education and having the opportunity to acquire knowledge.

Bull-crap. Degrees aren't worth anywhere near what they were worth before, so this traps people who don't want to do typically-masculine jobs into student debt prisons and a ceiling that keeps get higher and higher.

How many people's actual experiences do you have to erase completely to justify your worldview?

Women are at no structural disadvantage here and do very well in education,

Yes, and that's why it's the only place they can get ahead, and they have to pay FOR it, not get PAID FOR it.

The only system in which women stand any chance is a system they have to go into debt for. Masculine men control and place value and compensation upon everything else.

That should tell you something.

but around 80% of women, across the Western world, prefer not to work full-time. If that remains the case, you’re always going to get a disproportionate balance at the top, given around 80% of men prefer to work full-time.

Links, peer-reviewed, country-specific. What is "the Western world" in this context, what are the socioeconomic statuses of the people who were polled, who were they polled by, how were the questions worded?

If you can't provide all that information, this statistic in meaningless.

As you say, feelings are not fact. Neither is perception, reality.

Neither is an opposing perception and claim to reality, reality.

My point is that retaliatory politics is unproductive for citizens,

Unless you're a masculine-typical male in developed nations. Then they work perfect for securing you more power.

Everyone else just wins on case-by-case bases after being abused and exploited in almost every other capacity by people who are usually masculine males.

Who would be better served if there was greater concentration on the issues and fewer kneejerk reactions to opinions.

I thought you said earlier that these kneejerk reactions would always happen from people who are oppressed. Women and minorities are oppressed, so excuse them for getting kneejerk'y when White dudes talk about what is and isn't "offensive".

Academia is hugely important, as our primary source and driver of knowledge. What academia disseminates into the population has a huge ripple effect.

Education is this factor, not "academia". Social media is a larger portion of education for a larger portion of people.

Feminism’s success in obtaining a foothold in the universities for its advocacy, is a big part of how its narratives have come to dominate our media.

And that barely catches them up. And only secures rhetorical access, not actual access (power, prestige, privilege, property).

And it doesn't happen anywhere NEAR as often as you're alleging.

The agenda setters and opinion makers typically go through university before they adopt those roles.

Not true at all. It depends on their field of study.

All I'm hearing is "Women found a way to disseminate their message after being viciously blocked out, and now men are trying to take that away from them, too."

They have one frigging chess-piece, it's not even that big, and you're making it sound like men don't run the show when they do.

Masculine men. Specifically masculine men with less-masculine brainwashed underlings. Who mostly do NOT have vaginas.

As Noam Chomsky has often said, universities are great tools of indoctrination and train the manager class that keeps the rest of the population in check.

Unless they're cut-off by ridiculous debt schemes, and the women who make it through actually stand a chance in their actual PAID FIELDS after this, and those fields aren't devalued as soon as less men enter them.

Wow, femininity is so powerful now. Look at all those vaginas with no power and no positions talking in front of students in fields the students don't even go to and won't get paid for.

So powerful. Such conspiracy.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 1

It was an upset. Plain and simple.
Not a reason to lie about the models by claiming it was some sweeping victory when it was within standard deviations on most models.

Your false claims and characterizations of what you think I said are irrelevant. The fact is that Trump was the underdog and caused an upset, despite your hamstering attempts to say otherwise.

Even Jessica Valenti had to admit that her smug, self-assured confidence in Hillary Clinton's expected victory, was blindsided by the Trump upset, as were most of the pundits.

Feminism and gynocentricism have powerful voices in the Western world,
You're mistaking loud and public with "powerful". In spite of their move closer to the public, they're not anywhere near as powerful as phallocentrism and masculinism.

No, I mean powerful, the power of which many men have felt via the law, courts, institutions, media, educational system, workplace, female guile and more. Feminism and gynocentricism are every bit as powerful as phallocentrism and masculinism, but obviously that power manifests itself in different ways, given the fact that women are different. Having an inferiority complex and a grass is greener elsewhere mentality, does not amount to having no power.

Not to mention the fact that men bend over backwards trying to appease and accommodate women.
I don't know any man who does that. Unless they're trying to please their partner, and in those cases it goes both ways.

Then you haven’t been paying attention. Look at the study I posted about in-group bias, the lenient way women are treated by the criminal justice system compared to men, the disproportionate amount of financial assistance they get from men and the state, the special protections they get from the state and social protocol, the extent to which society is prepared to overturn protections of the rule of law for men, to better protect women, the way in which men and society pander to women etc. Women are coddled like crazy and anything less is deemed misogyny.

Women can pursue any course men do and have the added benefit of men transferring most of their wealth and resources to them anyway, as fathers, husbands, lovers and via state taxes.
No, they literally don't do that unless they choice to, and "state taxes" go to much more masculine systems than feminine systems.

De facto, men, as a group, are financially more generous to women than vice versa. It’s common and even typical that rich men date women less wealthy than themselves, often by some stretch. Such women will typically benefit from considerable wealth transfer. Unfortunately for men, women are more prone to marry up, than down, so men have to rely more on their own money.

At 50% of the population, half the people born to wealthy families will be women, who will naturally benefit from the wealth of the overrepresented patriarchs at the top and eventually inherit some of it, so around half the wealth finds its way into women’s hands eventually.

Marriage provides even better wealth transfer guarantees, with laws that are often very generous to the lower earner. Of course, that’s usually the woman, as alluded to earlier.

The relevance of choice is insignificant, since men already do choose to transfer considerably more wealth to women than vice versa, in overwhelming numbers.

Both masculine and feminine systems benefit women, so however taxes are divvied up is of little consequence.

The fact that you have a few elite men running things at the top, doesn't mean that they care one iota about the ordinary men below them.
More than half of them care about traditional gender roles in my country. It's written into their platform year after year after year. And they were already "Winning" before this year. So this notion that Trump was a cry from the oppressed is garbage.

It was backlash against loss of unearned power, not against loss of opportunities.

Our economy favors men and masculinity. It gives women and feminine people side-scraps and roles that are undervalued and paid less.

Caring about traditional gender roles does not entail caring about men. Maybe they are religious or believe in a traditional setup for other reasons, such as a belief that it creates a more stable society. It won’t be because they want to help men out lol, since it doesn't follow that a traditional setup up is preferred by men or helps them out. The in-group bias study, in my previous post, shows that men care more about women than they do men. Many women also prefer traditional gender roles, with one survey, on Britain’s largest women’s website, finding that 69% of the women thought that reinstating the value of motherhood was the top priority for modern women.

Trump's win wasn't down to any one reason. Several factors were involved, amongst which were the rejection of political correctness and the economic hardships of blue collar workers. It had nothing to do with your rote learned feminist narratives.

The economy favours anyone with the knowledge, skills and the work ethic to do well in it. In the West, women have as much opportunity to get an education and employ these abilities as men.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 2

Historically, they have exploited them as much as anyone else,
No, they've exploited lower social classes, and then exploited feminine people in all of those classes, even their own higher classes, and create a bottleneck Good Ol' Boys Club.

Most men were in the lower social classes and women higher up the socioeconomic ladder were in a better position than them. Women were not exploited more than men. They were, however, more protected. That’s why they didn't get conscripted and got first preference on the lifeboats of the Titanic.

99.99% of men don’t benefit from any Good Ol' Boys Club. What’s more, considerable portions of the wealth generated from such networks will go to female relations and companions as well, as explained earlier.

The evidence actually shows that men care more about women than they do about other men.
Because we taught men how to conquer, and only a few men got to actually conquer, but they continue to police each other for showing any kind of emotion (and freak out when traditionalist women continue this brainwashing).

Men in the developing world are not oppressed by women. They oppress themselves. That's not discriminatory-- it's intermale dominance and feminism already addresses this. But they see the word "feminine" and get scared, or they nut-pick Internet Feminists and miss the message.

More nonsense from the feminist bible. Do you have any original thoughts or applied logic of your own? They’ve really brainwashed you well.

The fact that you have more white faces in positions of power, doesn't benefit the poor white faces who are struggling to make ends meet.
It does allow people to succeed if and only if they're White-normative (and masculine-normative). That's eurocentric patriarchy.

Not if they lack education, knowledge, skills, resources, support and opportunity.

The white people above, are not trying to pull up the white people below. They’re doing what is expedient and what will give them the most power and money.
Yes, continuing to be toxic and masculine will continue to win them power and money.

The point, that you clearly didn't get, is that being poor and white is not a privileged position.

There’s also some research out there that shows poor white boys are the most disadvantaged and get the worst start in life. At the end of the day, everyone is just human and each has their own cross to bear. If your life is crap, having some people in power with the same skin colour as you or who are the same sex as you, is of little consequence.

It's not about being the same sex. It's about whether you're perceived as masculine enough or not.

No, it’s about a male, white identity, not privileging you if you are in a worse position than everyone else.

You’d rather your life wasn't crap and no one in power looked like you.
Not really. It's pretty obvious that I stand less of a chance when less people in power are gay, even as a White dude.

You're blatantly ignoring what most oppressed voices have ever said: It does matter. Just bc White dudes can't figure that out unless they're hugged by Richard Spencer these days, doesn't mean it's not true.

The reason their is no "White community" to draw their identity from (outside of fringe "identitarians" on the Internet), for example, is bc White people run society (imagined community) so they don't have to establish explicitly-White communities in their own local areas. Instead, they establish implicitly-White communities and fail to see that they're doing that.

Invisible identity. Same happens with dudes. Bc if they were truly oppressed, they'd be able to make a better, more organized case for it by now. Women managed to do it-- why can't men without it becoming an angry joke full of speculation? Yes really, assuming you genuinely had equal rights, equal opportunities and the same liberal democratic freedoms as everyone else.

I don’t use the word oppressed to describe men's or women’s circumstances in the West. That’s a feminist technique, co-opted to leverage the emotive association with peoples who have genuinely been oppressed, such as black slaves and black people. That's a very sneaky move by feminists and a measure of their ruthless craftiness. Neither men, as a group, nor women, as a group, are oppressed in the West in any meaningful sense. However, that’s not to say that neither men nor women experience injustice or the infringement of their rights. Of course, these distinctions were lost on the privileged white women who spearheaded second-wave feminism, while ignoring minority voices, and continues to be lost on the third-wavers, despite their attempts to slyly co-opt genuinely marginalised communities, with the introduction of their duplicitous intersectionality theories. Clearly, they're as self-interested and myopic as most others, not great, altruistic, human rights advocates, genuinely interested in equal rights for all. Naturally, they learned lessons from the glaring faux pas of the second-wavers, but they don't fool me.

As mentioned before, men tend to prioritize the concerns of women over their own, which is a legacy of our evolutionary past and our biological differences. Subsequently, the mobilization of men around men’s issues presents a greater challenge. As seen with the Titanic, men are even prepared to die for women.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 3

Also, people looking like you doesn't entail they will represent your interests.
When you will vote for them, they will respect your social interests and try and goad you into voting for policies that are of their economic interest and not yours.
In any case, in the Western world, people are free to vote and pursue power if they choose. Women comprise more than 50% of the population and other less populous groups are free to organise, field candidates for office and vote for people who most represent their interests.
And they will get cut down and judged much faster if they aren't White dudes. Double standards, dogwhistles, identity politics, etc.... If enough people enact those prejudices, it bottlenecks your progress, unless you're a masculine-typical man, and unless you're White.

There are challenges for everyone, but one has to do the best they can with what they've got. The world will always be imperfect and imbalanced in some respects, but we still all have many freedoms and different options in the West that we can utilise to achieve our goals. You're never going to ever have anything remotely close to perfection.

The issue is really access to education and having the opportunity to acquire knowledge.
Bull-crap. Degrees aren't worth anywhere near what they were worth before, so this traps people who don't want to do typically-masculine jobs into student debt prisons and a ceiling that keeps get higher and higher.

How many people's actual experiences do you have to erase completely to justify your worldview?

I didn't say anything about degrees. I talked about access to education and knowledge.

Nothing has been erased, but knowledge and logic have been applied.

Women are at no structural disadvantage here and do very well in education,
Yes, and that's why it's the only place they can get ahead, and they have to pay FOR it, not get PAID FOR it.

The only system in which women stand any chance is a system they have to go into debt for. Masculine men control and place value and compensation upon everything else.

That should tell you something.

It tells me that you don’t know what you’re talking about and are really no match for me, which was evident long ago. Nevertheless, it’s fun humouring you, for the time being.

but around 80% of women, across the Western world, prefer not to work full-time. If that remains the case, you’re always going to get a disproportionate balance at the top, given around 80% of men prefer to work full-time.
Links, peer-reviewed, country-specific. What is "the Western world" in this context, what are the socioeconomic statuses of the people who were polled, who were they polled by, how were the questions worded?

If you can't provide all that information, this statistic in meaningless.

A New Approach to Explaining Fertility Patterns: Preference Theory. Catherine Hakim.

Read from page 355.

As you say, feelings are not fact. Neither is perception, reality.
Neither is an opposing perception and claim to reality, reality.

It can be.

My point is that retaliatory politics is unproductive for citizens,
Unless you're a masculine-typical male in developed nations. Then they work perfect for securing you more power.

Everyone else just wins on case-by-case bases after being abused and exploited in almost every other capacity by people who are usually masculine males.

Not necessarily. I also mean all citizens.

Who would be better served if there was greater concentration on the issues and fewer kneejerk reactions to opinions.
I thought you said earlier that these kneejerk reactions would always happen from people who are oppressed. Women and minorities are oppressed, so excuse them for getting kneejerk'y when White dudes talk about what is and isn't "offensive".

You thought wrong. Never referred to kneejerk or kneejerk reactions (before this instance), or either always happening from people who are oppressed. I think you’re confusing this with my comment that ignoring people’s voices often provokes anger. Clearly, that's saying something entirely different. Furthermore, having your voice ignored does not necessarily entail that you are being oppressed, if one is going to use that term sensibly.

Academia is hugely important, as our primary source and driver of knowledge. What academia disseminates into the population has a huge ripple effect.
Education is this factor, not "academia". Social media is a larger portion of education for a larger portion of people.

Academia is what is responsible for much of the research, knowledge, findings, theories and talking points that get discussed throughout the culture and on all media. Don't assume that what happens in academia, stays in academia. I thought that much was obvious. Clearly, not to you.

Feminism’s success in obtaining a foothold in the universities for its advocacy, is a big part of how its narratives have come to dominate our media.
And that barely catches them up. And only secures rhetorical access, not actual access (power, prestige, privilege, property).

And it doesn't happen anywhere NEAR as often as you're alleging.

To quote Ti-Grace Atkinson: “Sisterhood is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.”

Power takes many forms and women have it. They have affected laws, institutions, social protocols, media content, public standards, the Zeitgeist, men, children etc. Women are not just sitting there like lobotomized, wilting flowers. They have had an impact on all aspects of society and wield power as much as men, just in different ways.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 4

The agenda setters and opinion makers typically go through university before they adopt those roles.
Not true at all. It depends on their field of study.

All I'm hearing is "Women found a way to disseminate their message after being viciously blocked out, and now men are trying to take that away from them, too."

They have one frigging chess-piece, it's not even that big, and you're making it sound like men don't run the show when they do.

Masculine men. Specifically masculine men with less-masculine brainwashed underlings. Who mostly do NOT have vaginas.

Well, you need a hearing aid.

Women were never viciously blocked out and they are doing just fine in the West relative to men.

As Noam Chomsky has often said, universities are great tools of indoctrination and train the manager class that keeps the rest of the population in check.
Unless they're cut-off by ridiculous debt schemes, and the women who make it through actually stand a chance in their actual PAID FIELDS after this, and those fields aren't devalued as soon as less men enter them.

Wow, femininity is so powerful now. Look at all those vaginas with no power and no positions talking in front of students in fields the students don't even go to and won't get paid for.

So powerful. Such conspiracy.

Well, if more of them stopped taking gender studies courses and actually studied something useful, maybe more of them would be better off. Then again, since only around 20% of them want to work full-time, maybe not. All ribbing aside, women actually are doing pretty well, by sensible accounts. Of course, if you're indoctrinated by radical feminist accounts of the situation, you're going to believe women's privileged and comparatively affluent situation in the West is equivalent to the historical slavery of black Americans.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 2

That’s why a, red pill, lefty like me is confusing to some people. I don’t fit their all or nothing, black and white script.
No, but you're still waaaayyyyyyy off about how power currently functions in any nation with a voting system.

Both sides can commit censorship, and Red Pill as a community has gone completely toxic and echo-chamber'y. It's a terrible, tainted resource and a camp of indoctrination.

Both-Sider'ism shouldn't involve excusing echo chambers-- they're still echo-chambers.

And one echo chamber is much larger-- they just excuse themselves by saying "But Mainstream Media!" and then do the same shit that pressures (SOME) mainstream media outlets toward being more careful with their speech.

The toxicity of some aspects of the red pill community reflects the anger a lot of men feel about being belittled, mistreated and ignored. As long as that continues, that element will always be there in some capacity. It’s human nature. We’ve had angry, militant feminists, angry black revolutionaries, angry socialist workers etc. Humans get angry when their voices are ignored. It’s unavoidable and cannot be controlled. If you try to control it in one venue, it will just find another. History is replete with ideological splits.

In any case, the red pill community is a small isolated group. Were it to become more mainstream, opponents and other voices would hopefully keep it in check. That’s why a diversity of opinion is important, because power is liable to corrupt, whatever a person’s political stripes. People always think that their own opinions are right and, given the opportunity, would seek to impose them on others. That’s why we shouldn’t be so arrogant or glib to think that sections in our own side would never do that or open the door to tyranny. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and bad ones.

So, I'm someone who prioritizes free speech over the right not to be offended,
The simple fact that you can't tell the difference between being oppressed and being "offended" is the fatal flaw in your worldview here.

I can tell, but you don’t seem able to.

That’s not to say that I encourage or welcome offensiveness, just that I recognise its subjectiveness and don’t think the reality or prospect of it is so onerous that we should threaten free speech by making certain "offensive" opinions or comments imprisonable offences.
That has nothing to do with Red Pill. They use that as an excuse to be assholes and go too far in the other directions.

Yes, assholes can end up tanking people's careers.

That's not an excuse to form a cult on the Internet.

First of all, the red pill is not one unified voice. At its core it’s just a disputation of the prevailing blue pill narratives around the dynamic between men and women, preferring to deconstruct this dynamic by dispassionate observation and biological considerations, rather than emphasizing an idealised vision or engaging in wishful thinking.

I don’t know that anyone is making any excuses. People are just doing what they want and not apologising for it. It’s not a cult, men take or discard as suits them, and come and go as they please.

I think that being offended is less of a concern than being physically harmed, smeared, losing your freedom or losing your livelihood for something that you said.
Except when power-structures exist-- and persist, and resist change from minorities as a reflex-- in which what you're calling "feeling offended" actually is "feeling oppressed" bc they're actually oppressed.

No-holds-barred "free" speech will only function to keep those with less power enslaved. Giving people some recourse against that is good-- not saying that punishment should exist outside of getting fired, but reparation should be given as a choice to all so that class action can fight against powerful assholes with prejudice.

Sure, some people will get caught in the crossfire, but as long as they still have the option of fighting it in numbers, it doesn't bug me that someone can get fired for making an off-color joke.

It may not bug you, but many others think political correctness and the curtailing of free speech has gone too far, hence Trump's win.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The toxicity of some aspects of the red pill community reflects the anger a lot of men feel about being belittled, mistreated and ignored.

As if they weren't doing that to themselves. We teach men to to dominate. When they fail to dominate, they get angry.

Traditional masculinity is just as broken as traditional femininity. What they're doing in TRP is not at all balancing that out-- they're playing with fire and freaking out when people react like humans-getting-burned.

They're choosing to do this in public. Choosing.

It’s human nature. We’ve had angry, militant feminists, angry black revolutionaries, angry socialist workers etc. Humans get angry when their voices are ignored.

I'm saying that men's voices are not ignored. Toxic voices are ignored until they can diffuse their message. "Angry, militant feminists, angry black revolutionaries" did more than shitpost on the Internet, in public.

Shitposters shitposting angrily will never be anywhere near "legit" as organized movements.

It’s unavoidable and cannot be controlled.

It doesn't need to be normalized either. I'm seeing a lot of "they're just angry-- it's harmless" going on, and I don't believe Neoreactionaries are harmless.

If you try to control it in one venue, it will just find another. History is replete with ideological splits.

It doesn't need to be "controlled". It just needn't also be normalized. TRP and a large portion of the "Man'o'sphere" is just as toxic and entitled as the "Fem'o'sphere", and this notion that it's an acceptable reaction is bogus.

It's worthy of critique, and your post doesn't sound like critique to me. It sounds like encouraging people who react in an antisocial fashion to be valorized and glamorized when they don't deserve it.

In any case, the red pill community is a small isolated group.

They're not anywhere near isolated. Neoreaction has been a thing for a long time. People just won't take it seriously off the Internet until they nip some of their anger and antisocial tendencies.

You can feel however you want to feel, but you can't expect people to take you seriously until you get a less volatile movement built.

Were it to become more mainstream, opponents and other voices would hopefully keep it in check. That’s why a diversity of opinion is important, because power is liable to corrupt, whatever a person’s political stripes.

My argument is that many of these men already have power-- they just want a little bit more when it comes to gaming for sex and affection.

Our current economy favors masculinity and masculine norms.

People always think that their own opinions are right and, given the opportunity, would seek to impose them on others. That’s why we shouldn’t be so arrogant or glib to think that sections in our own side would never do that or open the door to tyranny.

K. We shouldn't Anti-Tyranny Police every statement made in critique of someone either. That's just poor boundaries. If I get up on some stump and start shouting platitudes with a movement behind me, with TV spots and advertising and an obviously worked-out strategy-- yeah, bring out the anti-tyranny gloves.

Until then, it's illogical to treat individual comments on the Internet as some kind of social movement.

I'm critiquing TRP, not individual TRP commenters.

First of all, the red pill is not one unified voice. At its core it’s just a disputation of the prevailing blue pill narratives around the dynamic between men and women, preferring to deconstruct this dynamic by dispassionate observation and biological considerations, rather than emphasizing an idealised vision or engaging in wishful thinking.

They pretend to be dispassionate. They're not dispassionate as soon as scratch even remotely below the tactics they teach each other for concealing their biases.

They've already lost members who think the sub has gone to shit (see: TRPcore). It's already taken hold, they've already developed strategies against dissent, they've already built their house of cards, and their own constituents have already seen through it unless they enjoy the constant pseudo-intellectual posturing (to hide emotions) that goes on in there, as it goes on in most groups on the Internet that are poorly moderated or moderated by antisocial people.

I don’t know that anyone is making any excuses.

"Feminism made me do this." The ultimate excuse to be an asshole.

People are just doing what they want and not apologising for it. It’s not a cult, men take or discard as suits them, and come and go as they please.

Except that they don't. They latch onto confirmation bias like in any other group, and their most vocal members drown out the rest of whoever's reasonable. It's an echo chamber and a circlejerk.

You seem more interested in saving face for a side you align with, then recognizing how it's devolved. It does not lend itself to sober conversation.

They even make excuses for those loud, prevalent members by saying "They're stuck in the anger phase." No, you're encouraging them remain in that anger phase. TRP enables this.

It may not bug you, but many others think political correctness and the curtailing of free speech has gone too far, hence Trump's win.

It does bug me-- it takes energy to edit myself, but I do it bc I have more social intelligence than the people who think antisocial tendencies should go without critique.

It's a stupid reason to vote for a candidate, and I'm tired of lowering the bar to cater to stupid people.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 1

The toxicity of some aspects of the red pill community reflects the anger a lot of men feel about being belittled, mistreated and ignored.
As if they weren't doing that to themselves. We teach men to to dominate. When they fail to dominate, they get angry.

Traditional masculinity is just as broken as traditional femininity. What they're doing in TRP is not at all balancing that out-- they're playing with fire and freaking out when people react like humans-getting-burned.

They're choosing to do this in public. Choosing.

It’s human nature. We’ve had angry, militant feminists, angry black revolutionaries, angry socialist workers etc. Humans get angry when their voices are ignored.

I'm saying that men's voices are not ignored. Toxic voices are ignored until they can diffuse their message. "Angry, militant feminists, angry black revolutionaries" did more than shitpost on the Internet, in public.

Shitposters shitposting angrily will never be anywhere near "legit" as organized movements.

No, again, it has nothing to do with your feminist narratives, that we've all heard regurgitated a million times by feminists, like well programmed robots. Also, the toxicity only arises after, not before, voices are ignored. Moreover, not agreeing with or subscribing to feminist analysis, does not entail toxicity or misjudgement.

If you’re not blind or wilfully ignorant, you’ll see there’s much more than shitposting going on, as fun as that is.

It’s unavoidable and cannot be controlled.
It doesn't need to be normalized either. I'm seeing a lot of "they're just angry-- it's harmless" going on, and I don't believe Neoreactionaries are harmless.

It doesn’t need to be anything. It is what it is.

If you try to control it in one venue, it will just find another. History is replete with ideological splits.
It doesn't need to be "controlled". It just needn't also be normalized. TRP and a large portion of the "Man'o'sphere" is just as toxic and entitled as the "Fem'o'sphere", and this notion that it's an acceptable reaction is bogus.

It's worthy of critique, and your post doesn't sound like critique to me. It sounds like encouraging people who react in an antisocial fashion to be valorized and glamorized when they don't deserve it.

I don’t feel any need to critique it. That’s not my concern. Perhaps when feminists acknowledge the misandry inherent in their ideology and dispense with it, I’ll reconsider. However, I don’t see them dispensing with their beloved, but false and unproven, patriarchy theory any time soon.

In any case, the red pill community is a small isolated group.
They're not anywhere near isolated. Neoreaction has been a thing for a long time. People just won't take it seriously off the Internet until they nip some of their anger and antisocial tendencies.

You can feel however you want to feel, but you can't expect people to take you seriously until you get a less volatile movement built.

I'm not waiting for anyone to take anything seriously. I'm just enjoying watching the movement grow and contributing in my small way. Life’s too short to wait for others or society to change to your whims, not that you should be entitled to that to begin with. These are entities that you have no control over anyway. You have to take responsibility for your own life and live it as you please. You’ll be dead before long and would have wasted the greater portion of your life contributing to an infinitesimal change, that may or may not lead to the changes that you would like to see, 1000s of years after you have already died. What good is it to you then? Look at all those old, penniless, feminists who dedicated their lives to their cause, despite already being quite privileged individuals with many different opportunities to live pleasant and affluent lives or dedicate themselves to more pressing and noteworthy causes. Going down that root is a mugs game, especially from an epicurean point of view.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 2

Were it to become more mainstream, opponents and other voices would hopefully keep it in check. That’s why a diversity of opinion is important, because power is liable to corrupt, whatever a person’s political stripes.
My argument is that many of these men already have power-- they just want a little bit more when it comes to gaming for sex and affection.

Our current economy favors masculinity and masculine norms.

More men are abandoning the blue pill model and embracing their masculinity, which I support. However, most men are still of the beta variety, propping up gynocentricism. If they’re happy living that way, then good luck to them, but a lot of men aren't, so the masculine approach should be an option too, at least in a free society,.

People always think that their own opinions are right and, given the opportunity, would seek to impose them on others. That’s why we shouldn’t be so arrogant or glib to think that sections in our own side would never do that or open the door to tyranny.
K. We shouldn't Anti-Tyranny Police every statement made in critique of someone either. That's just poor boundaries. If I get up on some stump and start shouting platitudes with a movement behind me, with TV spots and advertising and an obviously worked-out strategy-- yeah, bring out the anti-tyranny gloves.

Until then, it's illogical to treat individual comments on the Internet as some kind of social movement.

I'm critiquing TRP, not individual TRP commenters.

I'm not referring to your comments here. You are inconsequential. I'm referring to the larger forces at play in this culture war and what I have already given examples of. Also, my focus is beyond simply TRP.

First of all, the red pill is not one unified voice. At its core it’s just a disputation of the prevailing blue pill narratives around the dynamic between men and women, preferring to deconstruct this dynamic by dispassionate observation and biological considerations, rather than emphasizing an idealised vision or engaging in wishful thinking.
They pretend to be dispassionate. They're not dispassionate as soon as scratch even remotely below the tactics they teach each other for concealing their biases.

They've already lost members who think the sub has gone to shit (see: TRPcore). It's already taken hold, they've already developed strategies against dissent, they've already built their house of cards, and their own constituents have already seen through it unless they enjoy the constant pseudo-intellectual posturing (to hide emotions) that goes on in there, as it goes on in most groups on the Internet that are poorly moderated or moderated by antisocial people.

Like I said, I’m not particularly interested in TRP, other than as a phenomenon that is a constituent member of the manosphere. The red pill, the manosphere, the men’s movement and the current cultural war is the perspective from which I am seeing things. TRP is just one part of that big jigsaw puzzle.

I don’t know that anyone is making any excuses.

"Feminism made me do this." The ultimate excuse to be an asshole.

That’s a nice quote you invented. I presume you understand the difference between an explanation and an excuse?

People are just doing what they want and not apologising for it. It’s not a cult, men take or discard as suits them, and come and go as they please.

Except that they don't. They latch onto confirmation bias like in any other group, and their most vocal members drown out the rest of whoever's reasonable. It's an echo chamber and a circlejerk.

You seem more interested in saving face for a side you align with, then recognizing how it's devolved. It does not lend itself to sober conversation.

They even make excuses for those loud, prevalent members by saying "They're stuck in the anger phase." No, you're encouraging them remain in that anger phase. TRP enables this.

I’m not a reader of TRP, despite having had a browse there a few times out of curiosity, but it doesn't bother me it exists. I’m actually glad it exists and think much of the content is legitimate. It’s an antidote to blue pill programming and benefits many men, despite its imperfections. Everything has imperfections. I don’t care about the things that you care about regarding TRP. In case you were unclear, I’m not a feminist, despite believing in equal legal rights and equal opportunity. I have no interest in trying to control other people's speech.

It may not bug you, but many others think political correctness and the curtailing of free speech has gone too far, hence Trump's win.
It does bug me-- it takes energy to edit myself, but I do it bc I have more social intelligence than the people who think antisocial tendencies should go without critique.

It's a stupid reason to vote for a candidate, and I'm tired of lowering the bar to cater to stupid people.

No one is arguing against criticism. They are arguing against the type of excessive penalties and tactics I have listed in previous posts to this discussion, particularly overboard legal restrictions to free speech.

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 3

Especially if they work as a public face for their company, or are publicly associated with their company in some way. If they don't want that to happen, they need to work in the background and not advertise their job affiliation to strangers on the Internet.

Yes, power structures exist, but that is not speech. One can change power structures without touching free speech.

Not outlawing “offensive” expression, which is impossible to agree on anyway, does not entail a no-holds-barred culture, where everyone says whatever they want and are as offensive to each other as possible. People are fairly cordial, naturally, in the way they conduct themselves with each other. If they make a mistake, they can apologise, or not, and change their approach in the future. Even without legislation, people regulate each other and a big deal is often made about causing offence, in all cultures. To me it is unnecessary and excessive to codify this practise in law. It will do us more harm than good, increase fear around speech and inhibit our ability to search for the truth.

None of this justifies Red Pill ideology (they shouldn't use these NutPicked examples to justify themselves). Or Blue Pill (they shouldn't use the examples of whoever they're fighting against as political weapons, either).

I don't see what any of this has to do with women gaining more power, bc they do NOT have commensurate power to men by any means.

What I see is a lot of anger that other males would dare say "Your hyper-masculine attitude is problematic, gain some balance."

And other males who probably run and organize these class actions. That's not feminism-- that's dudes politicizing "feminism" for their own political and social gains.

To blame the sex/gender minority in the binary tribalism ("men" and "women") for the actions of people taking advantage of their frustrations... that's just frigging bogus dude. Maybe women are getting desperate bc power structures are still obsessively masculine?

Why isn't TRP levying these objections specifically to men's co-opted "fourth wave" feminism? Why are they so reductive and lie about the power women have?

Women have the power to retaliate. And they're demonized for doing so.

When (the stereotypical) "femosphere" (who probably don't actually represent most English-speaking populations) get frustrated with their grievances, they use dirty tactics to oust individual workers.

TRP is a lie factory that eschews the truth in the opposite direction of TBP. They also claim to be non-political, so nothing going on politically in the world should be a justification for their echo chamber.

I'm not trying to justify red pill ideology. I don't care to justify it. I don't think it needs to be justified. People are free to do what they want. I was just answering your request for sources and examples, after the earlier claim I made, in response to your comment. Just because I felt like it.

Women have considerable power in the West and equal legal rights to men. They are free to do anything a man can do. In many respects they have more options than men. You should read Dr. Warren Farrell’s book, The Myth of Male Power. Your black and white view of power as only reflected in the select few who happen to run big institutions, is sophomoric. The world is far more complex and nuanced than this. As I said before, women are wives, daughters and lovers of the few very powerful men out there. A higher percentage of women directly benefit from this wealth. For men it's far more difficult to marry up or find rich female benefactors. Most people, men and women, are just modestly managing their lives as best they can. The real disenfranchisement is with the poor, where minority groups are overrepresented and more should be done to empower them. Women in the West, however, have it no worse than men, just different.

The fact is that men and women are different, so there will be differences in general outcomes, in the absence of any manipulation of the playing field to compensate. Human societies are a constant work in progress and we have come incredibly far since the first humans. However, humans are not perfect, will never be perfect and the world cannot be shaped into perfection by humans. Humans couldn’t even agree what a perfect world would look like. What’s more, progress is always slow, because of human limitations, the many moving parts and the colossal size of those parts. The world is not a video game and will probably outlive all humans. It’s really not about us. We’re just another one of the animals on the planet. I think that you overestimate our capacity.

You’re clearly still struggling to understand the perspective of men who do not see women as the aggrieved group. That’s not to say these men necessarily see men as the aggrieved group, just that they recognize both groups have their own unique challenges. The contention is that we often assume that men are more privileged, just because of a few dominant men who run things at the top, and deny that men have any noteworthy challenges at all. To get a better understanding of the position, I recommend Dr. Janice Fiamengo’s excellent lecture at Queens University, in Canada, on equality, and the equally excellent Q and A session afterwards, in which many feminists got to ask questions.

Lecture

Q & A

Regarding TRP, that’s a different issue. That’s just for men to get laid, satisfactorily and on satisfactory terms, away from the reviled blue pill model. You might not like it, but you not liking it is not important to TRP and I see no need to justify its existence. It should be noted, however, that a lot of people straddle different concerns of the manosphere, so you do get a lot of crossover.

[–]watch_for_ice22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (208 children) | Copy Link

[–]hauswyfetechno 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]sardonis70 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LyradexRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]LyradexRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WavesAcross 1 points1 points1 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

some conspiracy of women out there all trying to control the actions of men collectively.

If this is how you define "enforcing gender roles" then nor do men.

But the truth is both men and women enforce gender roles, though it may manifest in different ways. Importantly enforcement of gender roles is almost never done with the intention of enforcing of gender roles, but because the patriarchy rewards those who support.

When one boy calls another "fag" for wearing a pink shirt, hes not doing it with the intention of enforcing gender roles, hes doing it because it grants him status in the group, because the group has been cultured in a patriarchy.

What people, men and women, find attractive can absolutely depend on the society they are cultured in. And while no one is required to date anyone, that doesn't mean such actions fail to enforce gender roles.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cats_or_get_out 4 points4 points4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusicbluepill redneck1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hauswyfetechno 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

OK, first of all, sexual orientation have very little to do with one another. You can be gay and masculine at the same time.

Secondly, let's say for arguments sake that you're right, that 63% of women do not want partners who have had same sex experiences and that same sex experiences = Femboy. That leaves behind 37% who are at least open to dating these men, which in the USA would mean around 46 million women. If you're a particularly feminine man or not comfortable being traditionally masculine why bother going through the effort and anguish of trying to be someone you're not when you could just work on finding and attracting someone who digs your feminine or androgynous vibe? Sure there may be slightly less women to choose from but even taking that "slightly less" into account we're still talking about potential dating pool of millions. When the numbers are this big statistical averages really don't matter all that much which is something RP seems to have difficulty grasping

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (106 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]grindlegrundle 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]grindlegrundle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]grindlegrundle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]questioningwoman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]FairlyNaiveRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]FairlyNaive1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FairlyNaive1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]The-os1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FairlyNaive1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FairlyNaive1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]_Rookwood_Purple Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusicbluepill redneck1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusicbluepill redneck0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawai2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawai3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Men had the power to do so much more than women.

I do not think this is as true as we are led to believe. While women could not go and be a doctor or lawyer most places in the 1800's, my guess is men were equably restrained by socioeconomic circumstances.

Look, honestly, at least from what I have read, the whole women's rights thing is way overblown. The only people who had significant rights during most of history were some ELITE men and women. The rest? Serfs, farmers, working day to day to put food in the mouth of their children. Then men boys had the right to be taken into the military at like 15, either to never come back or return decades later.

either way both genders had it fairly rough in the "opportunity" category "historically"

Most of society had to "fight" to get college degrees. If your historical perspective is limited to 100 years, a lot of things will not make sense.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

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

gender-based discriminatory ones, don't be silly

You are right. Now, how many women do you remember being drafted into the military.

who historically were men.

You keep saying this. I know you want it to be true. But you can't prove it - because behind every strong man there is a strong woman... isnt that right?

But you did point it out... as proof. You basically said "its true because its true"

What I am talking about is that during most of our history as a species, we have been living hand to mouth, with both genders doing what was needed to survive. And because the SPECIES needs women more than it needs men ( they are the limiting step in the whole procreation process"). women were protected by their societies for the most part. The thing people keep missing when they talk about rights is that rights come after responsibilities, or at least they go together. Our society, in both gendered and socioeconomic aspects, seems to forget this at the opportune times

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Point out in history where women, as a gender, had equal power as men up until the 21st century.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists

That was too easy.

You're being obtuse here just because you don't like feminism.

No I am being "obtuse" because you are skewing history in a manner that didn't happen.

Feminism wouldn't exist if women had equal rights and power as men.

Maybe. I mean in various areas today women are more than equal than men and yet feminists are still pushing in those areas despite women being more than equal to men. Talking about feminists pushing to not have women face any jail time only men. And pushing women to dominate STEM majors despite women dominating college enrollment. Etc etc. Point is despite women being largely equal to men they are pushing past it in many ways. I can only think if society was equal before the 21st even during the 20th either gender would try and claim the upper hand.

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That was too easy.

Do you honestly think I was talking about prehistoric hunter-gatherer tribes? So when I brought up some examples like spousal rape laws, not being able to vote, etc., you were just completely confused about which historical timeframe I was talking about?

No I am being "obtuse" because you are skewing history in a manner that didn't happen.

You have yet to prove that men and women had equal political, legal, economic, institutional, or familiar power until the 21st century -- despite what we were all taught in school. I'm going to need you to back that up before you accuse me of skewing history for arguing that "historically men had more power than women."

Point is despite women being largely equal to men they are pushing past it in many ways. I can only think if society was equal before the 21st even during the 20th either gender would try and claim the upper hand.

I swear to fucking god man. Someone talks about "feminism" and you go nuts, on like every other topic you're a pretty normal guy. I have literally said like 3x on this thread that rights and power are pretty equal between the genders now. I'm arguing that historically, men had more power than women and your head is exploding for some reasons.

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do you honestly think I was talking about prehistoric hunter-gatherer tribes?

You said to point out any point in history when men and women where equal before the 21st century. Maybe don't ask such an open ended question next time. And no I was not confused to what timeframe you where talking about. If you actually read up on spousal rape it by and large was made a crime/outlawed in the late 90's. And that it was a thing going as far back as Medieval Times, if not earlier. So maybe you should been more specific with what time frame you where referring to. As various women's issues have been eons old, just like some of men's issues. Others like the right to vote where more shorted lived (historically speaking).

You have yet to prove that men and women had equal political, legal, economic, institutional, or familiar power until the 21st century -- despite what we were all taught in school.

I have. But of course you dismiss it because it didn't fit your little box. That said I never said women where equal in centuries like that of the 19th or 20th. But that women weren't powerless like you so much made it be. By the way in the 21st least US wise women have more economic power than that of men. But of course this is a good thing right? As things are balance when women are favored/above men and not on the same level.

I have literally said like 3x on this thread that rights and power are pretty equal between the genders now.

If you think that then you really need to do your homework, as least US wise women as a group are more equal than men. But I have a feeling you would say otherwise given you seem to think or least letting off balance means women more equal than men.

I'm arguing that historically, men had more power than women and your head is exploding for some reasons.

Like I told you before, you are skewing history in black and white terms. Having had this conversation with feminists I don't know how many times it gets kinda aggravating to say the least. As you feminists think no matter what men had power women did not no matter what. Not like you feminists don't still think this today no matter the facts.

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 9 years ago | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The people with the power to change society were those with power in the religious and ruling classes. And while those people were mostly men, most men were not in those classes.

You can make that argument wrt anything -- this doesn't make me incorrect. Historically, men had more power and less restrictions than women -- both in the lower and upper classes. How this can be denied is beyond me.

Men of all levels still worked to enforce gender roles. Every man who taught his sons, but not his daughters his livelihood, was enforcing gender roles.

You've just proven my point.

But that wasn't out of a desire to constrain men or women, but because he recognized that his children would find such a life comparatively easier than one which flaunted them.

I never once said it was done for some nefarious or intentional reason. It was the way society was back then.

So to suggest that men as a whole enforced gender roles in some manner fundamentally different from women is very misleading. Men as a whole were not in a position too, because men as a whole too lacked power in society.

It's not misleading at all. I do not believe "power" is exclusively defined as "can create and control laws," aka politicians. Nor did I define it that way. Men had more power than women -- even in poor, working class families. That's still "power" despite the fact that man can't create law.

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]hauswyfetechno 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bananakjones 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bananakjones 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbow1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hauswyfetechno 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bananakjones0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bananakjones1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bananakjones1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]darkmoon092 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]illisit2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm kind of with you there, although "stop caring so much about sexual validation from women" is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard - as if, for the vast majority of men out there, there isn't an enormous biological component compelling them to care so much about sexual validation from women. Blue Pill, christ, not even once.

That said, I actually think "traditionally masculine behavior" is actually pretty good. I'm reminded of that dumbass Washington Post article about how "men with traditionally masculine traits tend to be more depressed!" Ignoring that it's now par-for-the-course for the modern left to pathologize people they disagree with, the "traditionally masculine behaviors" they highlighted were:

desire to win, need for emotional control, risk-taking, violence, dominance, sexual promiscuity or playboy behavior, self-reliance, primacy of work, power over women, disdain for homosexuality and pursuit of status

I like how they threw in "power over women," "violence," and "disdain for homosexuality," you know, 'cuz males have to be the bad guys therefore the totally objective social psychologists in search of The Truth™ decided that apparently those three things are "traditionally masculine." But ignoring that bullshit, I'm not really sure what's wrong with the rest of those things. I actually think the rest of those things are... good character traits.

It's good to want to win. It's good to want to maintain control of one's emotions. It's good to take risks. Dominance? Is it meritorious to seek submission? "Sexual promiscuity or playboy behavior," so slut-shaming men is cool? Self-reliance? Gosh, so sorry men tend not to want to be dependent leeches on larger society. Primacy of work? Someone's gotta do the work. Apparently it isn't gonna be women. I don't see pursuit of status as a bad thing, the fact that they do is enormously illuminating of what the gynocentric overseers seek of men.

[–]illisit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said to stop caring about it

You didn't. /u/Princeso_Bubblegum did. I'm largely agreeing with you.

The men who "don't care" get the most validation from women and even if you do care emulating that behaviour will do you well (at least in the SMP).

Agreed. IDGAF is rewarded sexually. It's also at odds with male biological impulses, the first thing most of we huddled, unwashed, non-Chads think to do when we get our dick wet is to go buy her flowers, make plans for next weekend etc. when really, we ought to just... go live our own lives, do our own thing, and she'll fucking text you.

It's frustratingly hard to do, though. I'm still not very good at it, but getting better, and holy fuck does it work.

I agree with you completely about the way the left pathologises masculinity though. They wonder why men are withdrawing from society when their idea of society is actively rejecting and demonizing their entire being.

For real. When I read that Washington Post article, I was just floored. They really don't have a fucking clue, do they?

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EchoZeroElevenPursuing Answers to Unknown Questions2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SipsSparklingWater 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SipsSparklingWater 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LSTW12341 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LSTW12340 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LSTW12340 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]grindlegrundle1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

They're also driven by money and power. And not all of that is to score sex, bc a lot of times they already have a partner secured as they've oppressed women and refused to let them vote.

"Many categories of men"-- if the RP movement has its way-- are going to be subjugated AGAIN unless they pretend to be Chads.

And women will have to sit around bored and made fun of for developing "hysteria" when they're just fucking bored but don't want to face violent competition with men just to make a buck.

If anyone thinks the RP worldview can thrive without women getting raped back into the kitchen, you're taking a huge frigging gamble.

Centre-rightism and majoritarianism already encourage needless competition and the emotional pain that is all over the internet. Moving things further to the right will fork things toward authoritarianism ('might is right'), which will lead to people with larger physical builds subjugating anyone who tries to be more mentally and emotionally sophisticated than they are.

It will also create more incentive to over-value sex, over-value money, and over-value power over others.

That's a recipe for rape, and homophobia, and transphobia, and racism.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

They're also driven by money and power. And not all of that is to score sex, bc a lot of times they already have a partner secured as they've oppressed women and refused to let them vote.

"Many categories of men"-- if the RP movement has its way-- are going to be subjugated AGAIN unless they pretend to be Chads.

And women will have to sit around bored and made fun of for developing "hysteria" when they're just fucking bored but don't want to face violent competition with men just to make a buck.

If anyone thinks the RP worldview can thrive without women getting raped back into the kitchen, you're taking a huge frigging gamble.

Centre-rightism and majoritarianism already encourage needless competition and the emotional pain that is all over the internet. Moving things further to the right will fork things toward authoritarianism ('might is right'), which will lead to people with larger physical builds subjugating anyone who tries to be more mentally and emotionally sophisticated than they are.

It will also create more incentive to over-value sex, over-value money, and over-value power over others.

That's a recipe for rape, and homophobia, and transphobia, and racism.

As a whole, men are less driven by money and power than they are by sex. To quote Tony Montana from Scarface:

“This country, you gotta make the money first…………, then when you get the money, you get the power……….., then when you get the power…., then you get the woman".

Women were not oppressed. Gender roles emerged naturally and unconsciously over a long period of time, cemented by people's strongly held religious beliefs, superstitions and the need to survive in more primitive ages. Women had different rights to men, not necessarily fewer, and different responsibilities, not necessarily worse and certainly less life threatening. Life was more of a struggle for everyone, but men and women affectionately worked as a team to survive, not as opponents or enemies. Society continues to evolve and adapt as technology advances and people acquire more knowledge.

Don’t believe the false, simple minded, black and white, feminist narrative that you learned in Gender Studies classes and which says that men oppressed women. It didn’t happen. Men protected women, especially kin.

Who is talking about a move to the right? TRP is about getting laid, not politics. The manosphere generally is about promoting men’s rights and interests. It’s not left or right. Men of all stripes participate. However, there is an aversion to avoiding realities and the truth because they are politically incorrect or inconvenient. The truth often is. The quest for knowledge should never be directed by political agendas, that’s if one is interested in the truth. Some people aren’t.

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Don’t believe the false, simple minded, black and white feminist narrative, you learned in Gender Studies classes, that says men oppressed women. It didn’t happen. Men protected women, especially kin.

Saying it over and over again does not make it true. It's also incredibly dismissive to believe that only your viewpoint is objectively established. It sounds almost completely subjective, and doesn't even have any kind of what's called a "hermeneutic" in it (a way to establish the difference between what counts as objective and what counts as subjective) which makes it even less viable than a theory.

You're up against feminist theory, and conflict theory, and constructionism in general here, so you're going to need to provide more than "But academia".

TRP is a classic example of an originally theoretical (actually, since they claim it's not science, that means it's actually metaphysical or hypothetical at best) paradigm being co-opted quickly by political activism (due to angst) and desperately trying to maintain that it's apolitical and non-activistic.

Self-advocacy is automatically political when the group veers away from objective science, involves anecdotal field studies, and encourages flame-warring, social commentary, satire, etc...

It's apolitical in name only.

This notion that people are avoiding a rightist neoreactionary thinktank bc it's "inconvenient" is also a political rhetoric tactic.

I doubt it's disinterested in politics. Read all the screeds about "muh liberals" and "muh leftists", and your point falls flat.

That, or you need to be speaking for more accountability in the man'o'sphere, bc it's very unforgiving of many political ideologies that don't fit its narrative.

I also don't believe you can call it apolitical without deliberately obscuring a lot of what its own members do and say in public.

It skews to the right, entirely. If it veers from mainstream right, it sometimes even goes more authoritarian (which creates a bottleneck in which right and left are almost indistinguishable in practice).

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Saying it over and over again does not make it true. It's also incredibly dismissive to believe that only your viewpoint is objectively established. It sounds almost completely subjective, and doesn't even have any kind of what's called a "hermeneutic" in it (a way to establish the difference between what counts as objective and what counts as subjective) which makes it even less viable than a theory.

You're up against feminist theory, and conflict theory, and constructionism in general here, so you're going to need to provide more than "But academia".

I don't have to provide anything. I'm not here to convince you. It's up to you if you want to believe feminist theory over the overwhelming amount of evidence and logic that eviscerates their claims, much of which comes from academia.

TRP is a classic example of an originally theoretical (actually, since they claim it's not science, that means it's actually metaphysical or hypothetical at best) paradigm being co-opted quickly by political activism (due to angst) and desperately trying to maintain that it's apolitical and non-activistic.

Self-advocacy is automatically political when the group veers away from objective science, involves anecdotal field studies, and encourages flame-warring, social commentary, satire, etc...

It's apolitical in name only.

This notion that people are avoiding a rightist neoreactionary thinktank bc it's "inconvenient" is also a political rhetoric tactic.

I doubt it's disinterested in politics. Read all the screeds about "muh liberals" and "muh leftists", and your point falls flat.

That, or you need to be speaking for more accountability in the man'o'sphere, bc it's very unforgiving of many political ideologies that don't fit its narrative.

I also don't believe you can call it apolitical without deliberately obscuring a lot of what its own members do and say in public.

It skews to the right, entirely. If it veers from mainstream right, it sometimes even goes more authoritarian (which creates a bottleneck in which right and left are almost indistinguishable in practice).

TRP is not about self-advocacy. It's just about getting laid. Of course, that doesn't stop individuals making political comments.

Right wing views may be more common in the manosphere than with the BuzzFeed crowd, but you get plenty of lefties and centrists too. I'm a lefty, for instance. A little while ago they had a poll here which asked for people's pill and political affiliations. The reds turned out to be quite a diverse bunch.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]markd3153 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]anitapkcsarlbmed ggse1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]anitapkcsarlbmed ggse1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 9 years ago | Copy Link

[–]anitapkcsarlbmed ggse0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (100 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (90 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

femininity isn't fragile because it is considered inferior to masculinity. what is an unmasculine man called? any number of synonyms for girly, or womanlike. femininity has come to represent the lack of masculinity, and for that reason it is the core of most male-coded insults. once masculine things (names, hobbies, jobs) can become female-dominated but never the other way around. it's cool to give your daughter a masculine name but weird to give your son a female name, even if it was a male name at one time. so femininity is actually easy to achieve, all you have to do is fail to be masculine. dominance is an active role and submission is a passive one. to an extent, this even applies to ambitious women: to be feminine is to give up on your career and allow a man to lead and take care of you. it's giving up a portion of your agency in the economy.

Female leads in action flicks are decidedly anti-feminine. many of them are purposefully placing women in heroic (and even villainous) roles that were traditionally reserved for men. this further chips away at our traditional notions of masculinity, and I for one welcome it. I think the sooner men are liberated from this very narrow and prescriptive range of behaviors that designate them "real men" the sooner they can stop giving so many fucks and get on with their lives. the systematic removal of the standard by which we measure manhood is good for men. it liberates them from the playboy-provider-father lifecycle.

[–]findingmrnemo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I think the sooner men are liberated from this very narrow and prescriptive range of behaviors that designate them "real men" the sooner they can stop giving so many fucks and get on with their lives.

I think it requires profound hubris to suggest that there is no way that this goes badly. The Red Pill objection to this is, of course, that the vast majority of men, being heterosexual, won't find appreciation from the opposite sex unless they meet those standards. It's a classic case of acting on what women do (reward traditionally masculine men with sex), not on what women say (feminism).

The men who are liberated get no sex, get frustrated at that, and then get demeaned as "Nice Guys." I could care less that feminists refer to traditionally male behavior as "toxic masculinity," that just serves to reinforce the notion that feminism is no place for men - but it's not going to affect what I do, because being traditionally masculine and aspiring to those traditionally masculine things has netted me (and many other men) far, far more success with women and other men than prostrating ourselves over the altar of feminist axioms.

[–]future_space_boobs 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

nice guys aren't liberated at all... they're the most desperate for female validation of their masculinity out there. they just think it'll magically happen if they supplicate and beg for it. they set up covert contracts wherein if they do x number of nice things they'll be rewarded sexually or romantically... they're still victims of toxic masculinity, just a different flavor. the MGTOW movement in theory-- not the /r/mgtow sub that's just a hissing snakepit of bitterness-- is probably the closest to liberation.

and feminists faced a metric fuckton of shaming from men. men have always rewarded traditional femininity, and feminists knew they were working against that. being traditionally feminine will give you an easy life, just a restricted one. as with adhering to toxic masculinity, it's a trade-off of immediate social acceptance for freedom and agency. if shaming is enough to stop you, you don't want change bad enough.

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

nice guys aren't liberated at all... they're the most desperate for female validation of their masculinity out there. they just think it'll magically happen if they supplicate and beg for it.

As taught by feminist media, since being traditionally masculine is the worst thing a man can do in modern days. They're shamed for being traditionally masculine, so they aren't. Being ignorant, they approach women the only way they otherwise know how, which is... doing nice things for them. When this invariably doesn't work, yeah, they probably get frustrated and angry.

It's telling how much hatred feminists direct towards "nice guys," and how they expect everyone else to be on board with it. They've never experienced that life, so while they tell everyone to "be empathetic" and all that bullshit, they're happy to cast their judgement from on high over those terrible fucking nice guys.

Oh well. It's probably the single most effective recruitment technique for anti-feminist movements, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much.

and feminists faced a metric fuckton of shaming from men.

Jesus christ, and you guys can't let it go. Like every guy today is guilty of what men 100 years ago did.

as with adhering to toxic masculinity, it's a trade-off of immediate social acceptance for freedom and agency. if shaming is enough to stop you, you don't want change bad enough.

Difference is, women brought their reproductive value to the table with their complaints.

Men don't have reproductive value, which is why we know damn well where complaining is gonna get us, which is fucking nowhere. The one thing the left doesn't have going for it, is the fact that the enforcers are all still men. God help us when the gynocentric state has murder robots to enforce its will.

[–]future_space_boobs 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anitapkcsarlbmed ggse1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fffffforest1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

It does. So what gives women the right to shit on men for it? Women talk a lot about men invalidating them and their experiences, but how is this nothing but the extreme version of invalidating men?

Traditional femininity hurt a lot of women as well, but we didn't break those barriers by sitting on twitter and talking about how pathetic women were for conforming to them.

You can't just piss on the gender-identity of billions of men without first offering them a legitimate alternative. There are already countless articles about how men nowadays are confused due to the lack of a properly identified role, and now women are trying to piss at the only one they still have?

No, it's pretty obvious that people complaining about fragile masculinity only does so because they want to be assholes to men. I assure you that none of them would tolerate people making fun of femininty in the same way.

Tell me, how would you have reacted if men started talking about how pathetic and fragile femininity was?

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dohn_st1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WavesAcross4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WavesAcross1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I've always rejected the idea that I need to base my worth on what I do.

That's nice. Nobody else does, least of all, feminists.

I have a penis and working sex organs.

Which are a dime a dozen.

You're choosing to base your worth on "do" rather than "be".

Yes, I am. I consider that to be the realistic and mature choice to make. I'm not a leaf on the wind. I'm a man. What I do is who I am, and what I do is what society values me for. That will never change, and in my older years? I'm increasingly convinced it shouldn't change.

Feminists are under no obligation to call your choose a destiny.

I'm not asking them to. I'd prefer not to think about feminists at all, except that they insist on petitioning lawmakers to force me to work part of my life on their behalf. That's where I have a problem.

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

That's nice. Nobody else does, least of all, feminists.

This is just two appeals to status quo viewpoints. You're choosing to believe that this is how men should be. My argument is that that's not biological-- it's social, and it shows weak boundaries.

If you came to the conclusion that doing is more important, it should apply equally to all people regardless of gender.

Yes, I am. I consider that to be the realistic and mature choice to make.

In the event that you truly did choose this-- and weren't brainwashed into it by millennia of prolonged masculine norms, that's admirable, and you should stick with it.

I'm not a leaf on the wind. I'm a man.

So am I, and being something doesn't mean having no defined sense of self. It takes effort and discipline.

What I do is who I am, and what I do is what society values me for.

Why do you care what society values you for? I'm personally in the "Being" camp, but it doesn't mean I can't strategically do what people value to make a living.

You don't have to internalize it. You're telling me it's your choice, but you're also shifting now toward "I value basing my identity on what society values," which goes the opposite of what many people want for themselves.

Identity should ideally be as divorced from expectations of others as possible.

I'm not saying you personally are only believing what you believe "bc society", but it's worth examining it.

That will never change, and in my older years? I'm increasingly convinced it shouldn't change.

K. People have to do, and be, and think. It's a choice which one(s) you incorporate into your identity and to what degrees. I think outright rejection of an entire domain of human indentification is what shows weak boundaries. Mentally stronger and more sophisticated and mature people can have a fusion of values that revolve around doing (physical control, volition), thinking (mental control, intellect) and being (emotional control, inspiration).

And I think it requires more of all three to make sure you're not simply buying into a construct. Hence, "Purple pill"-- I'm a No-Piller. I reject both. They both seem far too in-step with current viewpoints to ensure that the people I'm talking to aren't complete tools.

I'd prefer not to think about feminists at all, except that they insist on petitioning lawmakers to force me to work part of my life on their behalf. That's where I have a problem.

Then go to an anti-feminist movement. This is PPD.

You deliberately seeking-out this crap on the Internet-- extra arguments just in your spare time-- will only increase the amount of thinking about "feminism" that you do. It seems that you actually do want to think about, tbh.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is just two appeals to status quo viewpoints. You're choosing to believe that this is how men should be.

No, I believe that due to what men bring to the table, this is how society will always view men. And that, honestly? It's not a bad thing. Socially enforcing weakness is just stupid, and any society that does that and inevitably collapses on the weight of its apologia for bullshit excuses deserves the failure it will inevitably succumb to.

My argument is that that's not biological-- it's social, and it shows weak boundaries.

Your argument is wrong, and extremist. I don't discount the social impact, but you do discount the biological impact, which is very typical of feminists and social justice types who don't want to entertain the possibility that the darker aspects of our nature are indeed, nature, not nurture.

If you came to the conclusion that doing is more important, it should apply equally to all people regardless of gender.

It doesn't, though. Women have the option of just being. They also have the option to do, but they are not locked into that, because their just being is deeply, deeply, cosmically important. A man does not have anything of cosmic importance tied to his being. He stands as replaceable as anything, which is why men must do, not simply be.

I'm not saying you personally are only believing what you believe "bc society", but it's worth examining it.

I live in a society. Why is it wrong for me to be considerate of what that society believes?

I'd prefer not to think about feminists at all, except that they insist on petitioning lawmakers to force me to work part of my life on their behalf. That's where I have a problem.

Then go to an anti-feminist movement. This is PPD.

Plenty of feminist echo chambers, and plenty of anti-feminists here on PPD. I don't intend to go anywhere. It's telling that feminism only thrives where it actively stamps out criticism.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I believe that due to what men bring to the table, this is how society will always view men.

Nope. If people were valued for a blend of doing, being, and thinking-- regardless of gender-- this would erode or become marginally important.

You're choosing to believe in what's called a "biological essentialist" argument, and those are just as hotly-contested as "social construct" arguments.

And that, honestly? It's not a bad thing. Socially enforcing weakness is just stupid

Seeing doing as paramount (or seeing being as paramount, or thinking) are all weakness to me.

Being-heavy arguments that push that crap on everyone are just as stupid and weak as this doing-only garbage.

and any society that does that and inevitably collapses on the weight of its apologia for bullshit excuses deserves the failure it will inevitably succumb to.

Your argument is wrong, and extremist. I don't discount the social impact, but you do discount the biological impact

Nope. I don't discount either. I just think one is way more important when it comes to gender. It's definitely not anywhere near an extreme argument-- you just don't like it.

Feelings =/= fact.

I don't need biological essentialism to equal "extremist" in my mind, bc I have better boundaries than you.

which is very typical of feminists and social justice types who don't want to entertain the possibility that the darker aspects of our nature are indeed, nature, not nurture.

I'm a Satanist, dude. I believe in dark tetrad and embracing them-- I just think gender differentials are overexaggerated and that basing your identity on it is weaksauce.

It doesn't, though. Women have the option of just being.

And that'd be a stupid choice. Just like just doing is a stupid choice. They both lack nuance and are prone to appeals to peer pressure.

Also, have you heard of infertility?

They also have the option to do, but they are not locked into that, because their just being is deeply, deeply, cosmically important.

Not really. Neither is a man's doing. Doing should provide a sense of competence and boundaries with the world. Being and thinking need to be in there, too.

You're mistaking biology for socializing, and socializing for identity.

A man does not have anything of cosmic importance tied to his being.

Only if you believe compassion and nurture and just being supportive aren't important.

He stands as replaceable as anything,

Opinion, not fact

I live in a society. Why is it wrong for me to be considerate of what that society believes?

I can be considerate of something without internalizing it. Why can't you?

Plenty of feminist echo chambers, and plenty of anti-feminists here on PPD. I don't intend to go anywhere. It's telling that feminism only thrives where it actively stamps out criticism.

It's telling that you're still talking about feminism when I'm talking about men, women, people in general, and values.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're choosing to believe in what's called a "biological essentialist" argument, and those are just as hotly-contested as "social construct" arguments.

No, I'm choosing to believe that nature has a non-zero impact on our behaviors. You're choosing to believe that nature's impact on our behaviors is no more than zero. I know which of the two I consider to be an extremist position, and it's not the one that argues genetics don't inform behaviors.

Nope. I don't discount either. I just think one is way more important when it comes to gender. It's definitely not anywhere near an extreme argument-- you just don't like it.

Feelings =/= fact.

Agreed. Feelings don't equal fact. And the facts say, there are tremendous biological differences that contemporary feminism (and you) prescribe to social influences. I don't think there are more men in STEM because the evil men conspire to keep women out, I think there are more men in STEM because men like working with things, while women like working with people.

It doesn't, though. Women have the option of just being.

And that'd be a stupid choice.

I disagree. If I had the choice, I might choose to do so. Or I might not. Who's shaming who now? If a woman wants to just "be," and get taken care of by a man, why shouldn't she? It's a voluntary relationship, so I don't fault her for it. Frankly I think that social order worked pretty damn well all things considered, but I'm against the idea of socially enforcing that to the extent of denying women the right to work, the right to own property, the right to vote, etc.

Also, have you heard of infertility?

Yes. That's a personal struggle that I cannot personally identify with, but infertile women are basically tasked with finding the same peace with their existence that every single man on Earth has to. And even then, have vagina will travel - plenty of men/potential partners might view infertility as a boon.

Men still don't even have that, and an infertile man is like completely worthless by social standards. There's a reason men with vasectomies keep it to themselves.

They also have the option to do, but they are not locked into that, because their just being is deeply, deeply, cosmically important.

Not really.

Yes, really, they are essential to carrying on the only intelligent species in the known universe. Literally, cosmically important.

Neither is a man's doing.

I never argued that a man's doing is of cosmic importance. In fact, arguably, their doings never are and never can be - but they are valuable to those around them I.E. that evil filthy "society" we're not supposed to care about.

A man does not have anything of cosmic importance tied to his being.

Only if you believe compassion and nurture and just being supportive aren't important.

They're not cosmically important, since those traits are pretty much built-in to every single human being alive. It takes very little effort to be compassionate, nurturing, and supportive, and usually the people who make hay about these things get inconsolably irate whenever people who are compassionate, nurturing, and supportive... stop being so, because they're getting taken to the cleaners by professional victims who vampirically suck people dry of this shit.

I reserve the right to evaluate whether or not you deserve my compassion, nurturing, and support. Plenty of people who bitch and moan that they just want empathy have gotten into shit situations because of their own stupid decisions, stupid decisions that have consequences.

I have. I live the consequences of my stupid decisions every day of my life. It sucks. You know why I make fewer stupid decisions now? Because there was nobody there to "be compassionate" or "be nurturing" or "be supportive" of my stupid, shitty decisions. I just suffered the consequences, which sucked, which taught me pretty lickety split to shape up, or to sod off and die. As a man, I would literally rather be dead, than be dependent on others to live.

It's telling that you're still talking about feminism when I'm talking about men, women, people in general, and values.

Feminism offers commentary on all of those things. And, usually, frantically brands as "evil" anyone who disagrees with its commentary on those things.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I'm choosing to believe that nature has a non-zero impact on our behaviors. You're choosing to believe that nature's impact on our behaviors is no more than zero.

You're choosing to believe that my statements indicated that I believe it has a zero impact. I simply said it's not as great of an impact as you're stating.

Not-*not-zero =/= zero.

I know which of the two I consider to be an extremist position, and it's not the one that argues genetics don't inform behaviors.

Never said it didn't.

Agreed. Feelings don't equal fact. And the facts say, there are tremendous biological differences that contemporary feminism (and you) prescribe to social influences.

No. Those aren't facts. Those are theories (both of them).

I disagree. If I had the choice, I might choose to do so. Or I might not. Who's shaming who now?

I have preferences of what I think is strong and weak. Only-doing or only-being are both weak. I'm not shaming men or women-- it'd be any individual that did that. It's weak boundaries and weakmindedness.

If a woman wants to just "be," and get taken care of by a man, why shouldn't she?

That's fine, as long as she values what she can do and think, too. I mostly enjoy just being. But I don't value it more than the other two.

You're talking choices. I'm talking values.

It's a voluntary relationship, so I don't fault her for it. Frankly I think that social order worked pretty damn well all things considered, but I'm against the idea of socially enforcing that to the extent of denying women the right to work, the right to own property, the right to vote, etc.

And I'm against restraining what is and isn't valuable based solely on genitalia and biology.

And even then, have vagina will travel - plenty of men/potential partners might view infertility as a boon.

Which means that men can be valued just for having a penis and a body, even if they're infertile. Which means your doing/being thing is bogus in terms of sexual behavior, and shouldn't limit your value system in the way it does.

Men still don't even have that, and an infertile man is like completely worthless by social standards.

You can't have it both ways: "Social standards worked pretty well, and inform my argument, but they're not the reason men are only valued for their doing."

They are. The same social structures that made the Doing Man + Being Woman thing work was bc they were complimentary constructed value systems taught separately based on biology.

You're choosing to perpetuate that by claiming that biology-->value link is essential, and it's not.

There's a reason men with vasectomies keep it to themselves.

Bc people like you fight tooth and nail to argue on behalf of your own limitations of value.

Yes, really, they are essential to carrying on the only intelligent species in the known universe. Literally, cosmically important.

You act like they can't find a surrogate and then define their importance elsewhere. Or get their tubes tied.

They're not cosmically important, since those traits are pretty much built-in to every single human being alive.

No, they're not. They're practiced skills that are done mostly internally (being, thinking). Have you seen the lack of compassion on the Internet, and the number of people that came from abusive so-called "parents"...?

It takes very little effort to be compassionate, nurturing, and supportive, and usually the people who make hay about these things get inconsolably irate whenever people who are compassionate, nurturing, and supportive... stop being so, because they're getting taken to the cleaners by professional victims who vampirically suck people dry of this shit.

That, or you can't tell the difference between feigned "compassion" and genuinely-practiced compassion. You sound like you were abused by someone, and think everyone's abusive.

I reserve the right to evaluate whether or not you deserve my compassion, nurturing, and support. Plenty of people who bitch and moan that they just want empathy have gotten into shit situations because of their own stupid decisions, stupid decisions that have consequences.

And you should value your ability to make those discernments.

I have. I live the consequences of my stupid decisions every day of my life. It sucks. You know why I make fewer stupid decisions now? Because there was nobody there to "be compassionate" or "be nurturing" or "be supportive" of my stupid, shitty decisions.

You probably don't value compassion bc you've only seen either enablers or assholes.

As a man, I would literally rather be dead, than be dependent on others to live.

No, that's you as a person. You're choosing to tie it to your gender.

Feminism offers commentary on all of those things. And, usually, frantically brands as "evil" anyone who disagrees with its commentary on those things.

"Usually", on the Internet. You're nut-picking (using the worst examples and seeking them out), and I assume you enjoy it and get validation from it.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're choosing to believe that my statements indicated that I believe it has a zero impact. I simply said it's not as great of an impact as you're stating.

That's a cop-out, as far as I'm concerned. You can say that you don't believe nature has a zero impact, but your rhetoric belies the suggestion that - for all intents and purposes, you don't.

Agreed. Feelings don't equal fact. And the facts say, there are tremendous biological differences that contemporary feminism (and you) prescribe to social influences.

No. Those aren't facts. Those are theories (both of them).

Sort of like gravity, and relativity. You aware of what a "theory" is, in science?

And I'm against restraining what is and isn't valuable based solely on genitalia and biology.

Me too, but that doesn't change what society largely will value, for reasons including biology. My objection comes where movements seek to change what they deem to be "unfair" because of the way things are. As far as I'm concerned, such movements are a complete waste of time and human effort. Forbidding women the right to vote was not "unfair" because of the way things are, forbidding women the right to vote deliberately took effort to do.

That isn't the case elsewhere, such as what society values in men. You can "be" to your heart's content, but damn you for condemning society for expecting more of you. Not everyone can just "be," because you still need food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc. in order to do that. Doers provide those things, and since men cannot make new humans, they're largely (and rightly, imo) expected to be doers.

You think we can change "what society values," as if they will simply ignore the fact that women can manufacture humans, and men cannot. I think you and Blue Pill thinkers in general, dramatically underestimate (or willfully ignore) the broader forces of evolution and genetics in play.

And even then, have vagina will travel - plenty of men/potential partners might view infertility as a boon.

Which means that men can be valued just for having a penis and a body, even if they're infertile.

I didn't say they can't be. I just said they aren't. I value men who merely exist, even if they're infertile, because I can identify with them through the mutual experience of being a man. But, I know how society broadly will view him, and unlike Blue Pill thought, I do not expect society to undergo a massive paradigm shift where people who are capable of reproducing are valued to the same extent as people who are not capable of reproducing. That won't happen, and, again, probably shouldn't, for the sake of the species.

Men still don't even have that, and an infertile man is like completely worthless by social standards.

You can't have it both ways: "Social standards worked pretty well, and inform my argument, but they're not the reason men are only valued for their doing."

I'm not trying to have it both ways? An infertile man who does will be valued by society... for what he does. But his condition is central to the reason why women value him, which is why they don't, which is why men who are infertile are wise to keep it to themselves. Unfortunately, even broader society's views of someone are not totally distinct from his or her reproductive and romantic success - we go over this here at PPD quite a lot, like how incels are viewed with near-suspicion by broader society, and how people who lack friends entirely are viewed with absolute suspicion by broader society.

Because society imposes expectations on its members, and Blue Pill thought considers this a bad thing - unless of course those expectations are the very Blue Pilled low-expectations of mindless hedonism, do whatever you want bullshit. There's no contradiction in what I'm saying here. There are different expectations for men and women, society views men and women differently, and that's okay - what isn't okay is society's current trajectory whereby the lifestyle and behavior of the overwhelming majority of men is demonized.

That shit either stops, or men in society should give society a behavior rightly deserving of that contempt and fear.

They are. The same social structures that made the Doing Man + Being Woman thing work was bc they were complimentary constructed value systems taught separately based on biology.

You're choosing to perpetuate that by claiming that biology-->value link is essential, and it's not.

You're demanding that society ignore biology, which is literally demanding society to ignore reality. Yes, I absolutely think that that's damaging, and yes, I have every intention of fighting that. You insist that biology does not have to be tied into what we value, and I insist that there's no way for it not to. The ideal feminist society would be hell for men, and wouldn't last 200 years, to be generous about it.

There's a reason men with vasectomies keep it to themselves.

Bc people like you fight tooth and nail to argue on behalf of your own limitations of value.

Because men with vasectomies are viewed as not valuable by heterosexual women. Because reality.

Yes, really, they are essential to carrying on the only intelligent species in the known universe. Literally, cosmically important.

You act like they can't find a surrogate and then define their importance elsewhere. Or get their tubes tied.

No, I don't. Women have the choice of being valued both for being, and both for doing. Men do not have that choice, and contrary to the endless whining of feminism, men will never have that choice, because work has to get done. The only purpose men have is through what they do, and that will never change.

Have you seen the lack of compassion on the Internet...

No, I've seen the skepticism that rightly accompanies sob stories posted by completely anonymous people. That isn't a lack of compassion. That's demanding veracity, A.K.A. "patriarchy."

That, or you can't tell the difference between feigned "compassion" and genuinely-practiced compassion. You sound like you were abused by someone, and think everyone's abusive.

If by "abusive" you mean "willing to suck people's compassion dry as long as they continued to be enabled by it," then yes, yes I do think everyone's "abusive." That's not the word I would use to describe it, though it hardly surprises me to see Blue Pill thinkers choosing such ridiculously hyperbolic rhetoric. But yes, I do think everyone is capable of and generally are leeches, which is why I unapologetically reserve my compassion for who I deem deserving of it, which is few people.

Frankly, I'm more compassionate in my day-to-day than I should be. I could be much further along in life if I had the strength to tell a lot of my friends, who have absolutely been fucking leeches, to sod off and figure out their shit on someone else's paycheck - but I live in a society where ~~mooching~~ "compassion" and "empathy" and "understanding" is encouraged by people like you, and where holding people accountable for their own actions is like, the evillest thing a person can do to another.

To say that I'm sick of that is the understatement of the century, we're breeding the most dependent, pathetic society on Earth - and contrary to your bullshit reversal of my words towards the top of my post, a society can go on for a long goddamn time without the mooches you enable. It cannot go on for long when the majority of the population exists as a cancer, sucking the life and productivity out of the working, doing minority. The observation of human societies in history and the laws of thermodynamics assure that.

And you should value your ability to make those discernments.

I lose my ability to make those discernments when social justice activists insist that the reason inequality exists is because people aren't being given enough free shit, and petition legislators to ~~take more of people's paychecks~~ "tax the rich" to "fix" that.

As a man, I would literally rather be dead, than be dependent on others to live.

No, that's you as a person. You're choosing to tie it to your gender.

No, it's pretty contingent upon my gender. See, I can be a stay at home mom... if I'm a woman. Or gay, I suppose, and having adopted, but I do not have that option as a heterosexual man.

Feminism offers commentary on all of those things. And, usually, frantically brands as "evil" anyone who disagrees with its commentary on those things.

"Usually", on the Internet.

Nothing in real-life contradicts this - in fact I'd actually argue that real-life feminists are far, far worse than internet feminists. There are SOME feminists, for example here on /u/purplepilldebate, who aren't batshit insane. But in real-life? There are actually feminists teaching Gender Studies courses in University, and who've managed to convince the administration that such courses are required for graduation. Those courses are nothing more than male-shaming courses, they're far more harmful than internet feminists saying mean things.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

PART 1

That's a cop-out, as far as I'm concerned. You can say that you don't believe nature has a zero impact, but your rhetoric belies the suggestion that - for all intents and purposes, you don't.

For your intents and purposes, I don't. I've changed a lot of, and worked in spite of a lot of, and genuinely reversed a lot of, things about myself that were supposedly developmentally pre-determined.

Sort of like gravity, and relativity. You aware of what a "theory" is, in science?

Yes. But you said "facts". They're competing theories.

Me too, but that doesn't change what society largely will value, for reasons including biology.

I think biology is overstated in TRP. Values are a type of choice. I think some males and some females (intersex if you wanna get inclusive)-- once they've stripped themselves of expectations, and decouple their values from their behaviors to some degree (or develop more dialectical perspectives)-- have personality structures that will favor your interpretation (essentialism), but others will favor TBP interpretation.

I think that gendered expectations are indeed strong enough to subjugate those personality traits that are considered socially unacceptable. I believe that's incredibly powerful-- for biological reasons (social cohesion).

My objection comes where movements seek to change what they deem to be "unfair" because of the way things are. As far as I'm concerned, such movements are a complete waste of time and human effort. Forbidding women the right to vote was not "unfair" because of the way things are, forbidding women the right to vote deliberately took effort to do.

That's where the argument about "covert" and "overt" sexism comes from. I believe sexism is taught. The only thing that's biological is being a child (or a temporarily-angered adult) and picking out major physical differences to slander other people in order to assuage cognitive dissonance.

I regularly use gendered and racialized slurs that pop into my head when I'm emotional.

I just see them as a way for my brain to preserve sugars ("heuristics"), and make a point not to structure my behavior around it.

&nbsp

I honestly believe that the "isms" arise from justifying these heuristics post-hoc bc it's easier. And that if enough people think it's true, they'll justify it in more sophisticated ways.

That isn't the case elsewhere, such as what society values in men. You can "be" to your heart's content, but damn you for condemning society for expecting more of you.

Society's values determine what I compromise and negotiate. It doesn't determine my values.

Not everyone can just "be," because you still need food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc. in order to do that.

Yup, including women.

Doers provide those things, and since men cannot make new humans, they're largely (and rightly, imo) expected to be doers.

That should only happen when a partner is pregnant. I think it's mentally lazy to assign pregnancy values across an entire relationship AND singledom.

Women and men need to cut it out. It's not impossible, clearly. I seriously doubt Blue Pill is as much of a conspiracy of "hedonism" as it is a rhetorical counterweight against an equally politically-expedient notion from Terpers.

You think we can change "what society values," as if they will simply ignore the fact that women can manufacture humans.

Nope. Especially since feminism is downplaying the importance of biological motherhood.

and men cannot. I think you and Blue Pill thinkers in general, dramatically underestimate (or willfully ignore) the broader forces of evolution and genetics in play.

And I'd say you underestimate how powerfully wired our brains are to respond to very contemporary social norms.

To dismiss all the people who have broken from this conditioning and saying that your pill is any more "natural" is way too convenient.

There is an impulse to oversimplify, and base your entire worldview upon obvious physical differences, but I think that is the result of intellectual and emotional laziness paired with extremely pressing social norms.

I've been baffled by the things that people do, and the lining of most of that amounted to "norms and values" and giving in to the animal parts of our brains.

I believe people are happier and healthier when they don't code that stuff into their interactions, except with very close friends and significant others. It's fine to have those feelings and impulses, but it's unethical and lazy to me to allow them to structure your values and social actions.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

PART 2

I didn't say they can't be. I just said they aren't. I value men who merely exist, even if they're infertile, because I can identify with them through the mutual experience of being a man.

That's not important to me. That's homogeneity at play-- I'd rather identify with people who are different than me, bc I like a challenge.

That also means I like to (try) and identify with the parts of masculinity (and even the socially-constructed 'normal' manhood) that I believe are healthy and valuable.

As much as the rhetoric says "Don't dare identify with a woman if you aren't one," I believe that's laziness on the other side and gdi I identify anyway.

But, I know how society broadly will view him, and unlike Blue Pill thought, I do not expect society to undergo a massive paradigm shift where people who are capable of reproducing are valued to the same extent as people who are not capable of reproducing.

I've never valued males less than females. I've actually never been able to think about females' contribution to the process of reproduction without immediately thinking of the male.

I think you're underestimating how quickly the paradigm would shift if you stopped fighting it. Neither of these worldviews are essential.

I'm not saying you should stop fighting for what you believe; however, the only reason it's not changing more rapidly is because of people like you fighting against it.

That doesn't mean yours is more essential and that a paradigm shift is impossible. It just means it'll happen slower.

Why would something like... a middle ground of gender egalitarianism-- if it truly equally encouraged men and women to stop resting on their biological "babymaking value" and develop their own desired selves regardless of gendered expectations--....

--... as long as it addressed concerned of a lapse in productivity, why would it actually matter?

Like, a hammered-out, smoothed-out consensus on a real "Purple Pill"-- why would that be so bad, unless you want to continue placing this devaluation on yourself and other men regardless of how much grief it causes?

That won't happen, and, again, probably shouldn't, for the sake of the species.

You act like people won't have sex if they tweaked their ethics and values slightly.

Being anti-Blue-Pill for reasons on anti-hedonism doesn't mean you have to embrace Red-Pill.

I can't stand either of them, even though I think Blue-Pill will be better useful idiots for gender-egalitarianism. Even if they have to strong-arm their way there.

Unfortunately, even broader society's views of someone are not totally distinct from his or her reproductive and romantic success - we go over this here at PPD quite a lot, like how incels are viewed with near-suspicion by broader society, and how people who lack friends entirely are viewed with absolute suspicion by broader society.

Well, yes bc it fails to give people a frame of reference. I can understand that with the friends thing, but the sex thing is just dumb.

Asexual and demisexual advocacy can help that.

Because society imposes expectations on its members, and Blue Pill thought considers this a bad thing - unless of course those expectations are the very Blue Pilled low-expectations of mindless hedonism, do whatever you want bullshit.

I think that's just nut-picking. My agreements with Blue Pill are incredibly sophisticated, like a game of 7-dimensional chess.

They suck at persuasion, and largely believe what they believe bc it's convenient, but it's the whole "right side of history" thing.

I only see mindless hedonism in the "postmodern" Can't We All Just Get Along, No Judgments, Blah blah blah kumbaya garbage.

I don't believe that Berpers are truly trying to get along-- they're just trying to use nihilist rhetoric to erode longstanding social norms.

That's not necessarily a reflection of a lack of ethics-- it's just what's politically expedient.

I think you're mistaking tactics for underlying values. (Except for the nutbags on the Internet-- a lot of them are truly just nihilistic and lost, but I consider them useful idiots.)

There's no contradiction in what I'm saying here. There are different expectations for men and women, society views men and women differently, and that's okay.

I think it's damaging to men and to women. And that it was initially constructed from laziness, so I can't encourage them. I can admit that the impulse to prejudice, and the desire to see gender as essential, are really compelling forces, but I think their power comes from people agreeing with them in large groups and over the course of generations.

The same way that men became more likely to accept being feminized, is how they became exclusively masculine in large numbers.

I believe it's all programming. In sociology, your argument falls under Structual Funcitonalism:

It is structured. and it is functional, but I also believe their function is to prevent nuanced thought that prevents people from expanding their values to encapsulate more of their personalities.

That only leads to hedonism if many, many other norms break down.

I don't want men to learn this only. Women and men need to embrace it equally, or there'll be personality imbalances across populations (if men feminize, and women don't masculinize, we'll have too much femininity).

I believe people would be more gender neutral naturally if gender norms changed.

what isn't okay is society's current trajectory whereby the lifestyle and behavior of the overwhelming majority of men is demonized.

I don't see that happening, really. I only see the truly Dark Triad/Tetrad actions being demonized. And that's something I agree with. They are not something that can be safely coded into social actions.

They're fine internally and in private, but I don't think they should be taken public bc people can't handle them, pretty much ever, without too many dysfunctions developing.

That shit either stops, or men in society should give society a behavior rightly deserving of that contempt and fear.

That's terrorism. No thanks.

And, again, I don't see it happening to men any more than it happens to women.

Men are just getting heat in politics bc power is shifting away from them.

A lot of masculinity is toxic. A lot of femininity is toxic. But those are based on norms, and the norms for men have been action-based, so masculine toxicity has actionable offenses that I find unethical, while feminine toxicity tends to turn inward on the individual woman.

My ethics are largely based on social consequence, not internal states-- so I'm more apt to judge toxic masculinity more harshly, even when a woman is enacting it.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not going to respond to all four of your responses, I simply do not have the patience for that. Sorry. I'll respond to things that stick out, here, and then mostly seeking cloture.

Like, a hammered-out, smoothed-out consensus on a real "Purple Pill"-- why would that be so bad, unless you want to continue placing this devaluation on yourself and other men regardless of how much grief it causes?

First off, I can't really take that seriously. I identify as "purple pill," which is acknowledgement of the obvious, beaten-to-death Blue Pill axioms - I don't think gay and transgender people should be excommunicated from society, I don't think women should be forbidden from working/voting/owning property. The only reason I have to provide a disclaimer for that low-hanging fruit is because of the propensity of Blue Pill adherents to assume that anyone who disagrees with them on anything else, is probably some kind of anti-egalitarian Nazi.

I'm not. It's just that, being "purple pill" means that you accept some of the Blue (see above)... and some of the Red. The Red is most of the uncomfortable truths that Blue is in outright denialism of - like the fact that women reward traditional masculinity with sexual attention, like the fact that men are attracted to thin, shapely women, like the fact that women are the gatekeepers of sex, etc.

For the same reason that I think socialism is an idiotic political ideology, I think your "hammered-out, smoothed-out consensus" is nonsense: There will never be that hammered-out, smoothed-out consensus. No one will ever agree on everything, society-wide, and in fact, the more people do, the greater the incentive to break from it.

You think women will ever reward non-traditional men, if we all just got down and held hands and sing kumbaya. I think that's a fucking pipe dream, and the people who are really going to win are going to be the same people who have always won: Those who got down to business, had some nasty sex, and had kids. The ideologies that extoll the virtues of doing that, are the ones that win.

For the record, that is neither going to be anti-marriage Red Pillism, and it damn sure isn't gonna be Blue Pill social justice politically-correct feminism where having babies and the nuclear family are like oppressor points.

Long story short, I don't think men can be freed from these expectations, because social expectations will always be there and people don't exist in a vacuum.

That shit either stops, or men in society should give society a behavior rightly deserving of that contempt and fear.

That's terrorism. No thanks.

Give men in society zero purpose, and zero social standing, and see what they have left to resort to. I think you'll find "just love and tolerate everybody and everything" is probably not a sufficiently cohesive nor valuable enough ideology to compel them to fall in line. You have to give them something that is bigger than themselves to believe in, and all you offer them is contempt for their biology, wrapped in the pretext of concern for them.

Most men don't want your fucking concern for "being locked in masculine gender norms," or whatever bullshit sociologists are dreaming up nowadays. They want you to leave them the fuck alone, so that they can provide and be a decent father to their kids. That's purpose, and it doesn't surprise me to see anti-work leftists baffled as to how people could possibly want that.

Freedom, in the male/libertarian vernacular is not "freedom" in the female/leftist vernacular. It is freedom from, not freedom to. Freedom from costs every single person in society nothing to provide. Freedom to creates a class of workers upon whom the rest of society leeches from. Violent response to this isn't terrorism, it's liberation.

Men are just getting heat in politics bc power is shifting away from them.

Typical Blue Pill justification for their shaming.

Some. But I also know that poltiical rhetoric is designed to make you overestimate how many people are doing that so you deliberately vote against whichever group opposes the rightism in any given nation.

No, it's mostly from my own anecdotal experiences. In exactly zero instances have I found a single person that will honestly evaluate the impact of their shifting costs onto others, and take action to rectify that. It even took me awhile to figure that out, and I've passed a lot of costs onto others that to this day, I am working to pay off and I am ashamed of. At least I'm ashamed of it, though - most others feel completely fucking entitled to it, and participate in the political process for the state to protect their right to moocherhood. Yes, I absolutely believe that the overwhelming majority of people are like this.

To say that I'm sick of that is the understatement of the century, we're breeding the most dependent, pathetic society on Earth - and contrary to your bullshit reversal of my words towards the top of my post, a society can go on for a long goddamn time without the mooches you enable.

K. That sounds like right-wing rhetoric.

It is.

Gender-egalitarianism in the way I've described it is not going to lead to mooching.

But gender "egalitarianism" in the way that it's actually happening is absolutely leading to that. See: The abundance of "women's programs" in, um, everything. I bet you dollars to doughnuts those programs last until the collapse of this government, regardless of the outcomes of women in society. They could be (and in many cases, today, are) doing better than men, and programs and benefits specific to women will not only continue to exist, but will be fiercely defended by women and men.

You're trapped in rhetoric, and you should hate that. But you don't seem to care.

I don't. The fact that you launch this accusation at me, in total seriousness, after a four-part gusher of rhetoric that would make a Marxist sociology professor beam with pride, is fraught with irony. Rhetoric is speech. No, I'm not going to run from the fact that my rhetoric happens to be rhetoric you disagree with. I've even made concessions towards your point of view, but that isn't enough - which is pretty typical of leftists.

I think you've bought into a convenient distraction designed to keep you in lockstep with capitalism.

No, I think capitalism is the most positive social force in history. It works because it recognizes merit, and faces the cold reality that we cannot all be winners. It takes spectacular incompetence to lose in every capitalist society on Earth. You might not get to the top of the food chain, but you're probably not going to lose unless you've done some spectacularly stupid things - in which case, given that we cannot not have losers, makes that person a prime candidate deserving of that outcome.

Harsh, but acceptance of this reality is. There are limited resources. They should go to people who have demonstrated their value, rather than to people because they exist, possess to ability to consume things, and vote.

You're oversimplifying pro-taxation arguments. They're designed to prevent the kind of maladies you believe they're causing.

They're designed to. But they don't, and they do actively cause some maladies. I don't think taxes are inherently bad - while I'd love a world without them, and without the states that accompany them, the reality is that social groups must produce respect for their existence by successfully violently opposing those who would do them harm. Groups that cannot do this, do not succeed. Might makes right is, while unquestionably immoral, real.

I had no idea you were anti-welfare, anti-taxation, etc, etc, etc.... Knowing that, it seems wayyyyyyy to stereotypical for it to have nothing to do with politicians trying to manipulate you.

It does not surprise me that you rob people who disagree with you of their agency. That's, like, leftism 101.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

PART 3

You're demanding that society ignore biology.

No, I'm not. A few wingnuts are, yes. But they suck.

which is literally demanding society to ignore reality.

Not really. If I don't believe that biology plays that much of a role, it's not something I consider reality.

This argument is older than religion. Subjectivism vs objectivism, and which is the right balance in between. Essence vs substance. Consequence vs intention. Etc, etc, etc....

I think it's very naive to assume that the arguments people are making on the Internet are any indication of their innermost values. They're probably just trying to make political headway.

Trolls are a great example. A lot of them don't believe anything they're saying, but know it'll have the desired effect.

People have gotten very Machiavellian in politics bc it's the only way they can feel powerful when money is running everything.

While people are stupid, they are also predictable. I don't think BP is anything more than satire with a few wingnuts, but it's mostly probably just people trying to launch a rhetorical campaign.

Yes, I absolutely think that that's damaging, and yes, I have every intention of fighting that.

Okay, then whatever wins, wins. Just be mindful of your own rhetoric and intentions.

You insist that biology does not have to be tied into what we value, and I insist that there's no way for it not to. The ideal feminist society would be hell for men, and wouldn't last 200 years, to be generous about it.

That would be the version of feminism you've internalized based on wingnuts and (probably misinterpreting the dispositions and intentions behind) social actions of people who are in a campaign.

Because men with vasectomies are viewed as not valuable by heterosexual women. Because reality.

Again, that would be a laziness and a failure on their part. And I seriously don't think that many feminists are truly against making concessions to how value-differentials affect men.

I think you're seeing the Bottom of the Barrel of self-identified feminists. But, I also think you're mistaking rhetoric for their actual beliefs.

I believe they'll get out of lockstep (repeating whatever works in a campaign) when gender critique is launched at both men and women equally, rather than maintaining essentialist discourse on either side.

Women need to let go of their own "It's bc I'm a woman" rhetoric, too, to make their arguments more palatable, but they're currently escalated in a culture war that also includes things like access to abortion.

So they're not going to completely de-escalate right now. And maintaining a separation based on AWALT and AMALT bullshit isn't go to help.

I agree the impulses you're talking about are there. I think it's lazy to allow them to wire into your personality or your values.

A lot of people are intellectually and emotionally lazy (even ones with a lot of physical and behavioral discipline), so it'll take a really long time for any of this to happen.

But, I have to hold the line. I have to maintain my position, just as you feel you have to maintain yours.

I seriously, SERIOUSLY understand your argument.

However, you're making a lot of assumptions about people who oppose it.

No, I don't. Women have the choice of being valued both for being, and both for doing. Men do not have that choice, and contrary to the endless whining of feminism, men will never have that choice, because work has to get done.

Women can definitely take on that work, especially if they get things like paid maternal leave. Their partners should also get paternal leave (I would argue only if married).

The only purpose men have is through what they do, and that will never change.

I believe it will change if more people take the Purple, the Blue, or the "No" Pill. It will only not change if your side chooses to keep fighting it and are successful.

No, I've seen the skepticism that rightly accompanies sob stories posted by completely anonymous people. That isn't a lack of compassion. That's demanding veracity, A.K.A. "patriarchy."

Nah, I've seen blatant narcissism, sadism, Machiavellianism and even some sociopathy. It's the Internet, and these are semi-anonymous people with no consequences.

I've been tempted to judge Trump supporters bc of The_Donald and what I call the Comments-Section Right, but then I see that comments-section leftists and centrists are just as dumb.

Bc people who wouldn't bother with those kind of arguments aren't having them.

If by "abusive" you mean "willing to suck people's compassion dry as long as they continued to be enabled by it," then yes, yes I do think everyone's "abusive." That's not the word I would use to describe it, though it hardly surprises me to see Blue Pill thinkers choosing such ridiculously hyperbolic rhetoric.

The portion is your quotation marks could easily be considered hyperbole.

You do sound like you've seen a lot of Dark Tetrad traits from self-proclaimed feminists-- and I would argue that's bc you chose a terrible sample to behold.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

PART 4

Frankly, I'm more compassionate in my day-to-day than I should be. I could be much further along in life if I had the strength to tell a lot of my friends, who have absolutely been fucking leeches, to sod off and figure out their shit on someone else's paycheck.

Some. But I also know that poltiical rhetoric is designed to make you overestimate how many people are doing that so you deliberately vote against whichever group opposes the rightism in any given nation.

Political expedience.

but I live in a society where mooching "compassion" and "empathy" and "understanding" is encouraged by people like you.

Only if you don't know what I mean by "compassion". Or you have another definition of it.

You're describing being taken advantage of. That's going to happen bc some people are assholes. On all sides.

I believe things like Red Pill rhetoric are much more likely to be taken advantage of to lead to sadism and sociopathy (which I consider the cardinal issues of masculinism), just as Blue Pill rhetoric can be taken advantage of to lead to narcissism and Machiavellianism (which I consider cardinal issues of feminism).

I believe the toxic aspects of masculinity are more abundant bc men keep pushing them as some kind of righteous battle.

Feminism has done a better job than masculnism of rooting out the kind of toxicity that transfers into Dark Tetrad behaviors.

If masculinism had rooted that stuff out, and feminism were the force I believed was stronger (currently) at encouraging its portion of the Dark Tetrad, I'd use masculinists as useful idiots for my political chessboard and not feminists.

I believe men got us into this mess and keep us trapped in it, so I work with the counterweight to that social force.

and where holding people accountable for their own actions is like, the evillest thing a person can do to another.

I don't see that happening. I see calling out covert sexism as holding people accountable for their actions, for example. It's just not comfortable.

To say that I'm sick of that is the understatement of the century, we're breeding the most dependent, pathetic society on Earth - and contrary to your bullshit reversal of my words towards the top of my post, a society can go on for a long goddamn time without the mooches you enable.

K. That sounds like right-wing rhetoric.

Gender-egalitarianism in the way I've described it is not going to lead to mooching.

It may swing things to the left a bit, but that's only bc male domination coded into the right in our current structure.

If men were leftists, I'd probably use rightist feminism as a counterweight to it, on principle.

You're trapped in rhetoric, and you should hate that. But you don't seem to care.

It cannot go on for long when the majority of the population exists as a cancer, sucking the life and productivity out of the working, doing minority.

You're right. Good thing feminism doesn't do that. Politicized, idiocratic "feminism" does.

And so does rightism in my opinion, but I know that right-wing rhetoric literally says the opposite so it's pointless to even go down that rabbit-hole.

I think all you've found is a convenient boogeyman that just happens to help you structure your behavior.

You could change-out "feminism" in almost every instance with the word "liberalism" in all your posts, and it would read like right wingnut political rhetoric.

The observation of human societies in history and the laws of thermodynamics assure that.

You're right. But that doesn't have to do with feminism. Only idiocracy and culture war garbage, that I would argue is more the result of too much statism. And that's taken advantage of by corporatist garbage that can only flourish under economies that are too far to the right.

This is, again, a rabbit-hole.

I think you've bought into a convenient distraction designed to keep you in lockstep with capitalism.

I lose my ability to make those discernments when social justice activists insist that the reason inequality exists is because people aren't being given enough free shit,

Depends on what you mean by "free shit". And who these "activists" are.

The welfare angle can be just as toxic as the laissez-faire angle, in terms of social outcomes.

and petition legislators to take more of people's paychecks "tax the rich" to "fix" that.

Taxation is a choice to honor the consensus of the democracy you live in. We never said "no taxation"-- only no taxation without representation.

You're oversimplifying pro-taxation arguments. They're designed to prevent the kind of maladies you believe they're causing.

Rabbit-hole, though. I'm willing to bet you've internalizing right-wing rhetoric that plays on your disdain for the idiots you see on the Internet.

No, it's pretty contingent upon my gender. See, I can be a stay at home mom... if I'm a woman. Or gay, I suppose, and having adopted, but I do not have that option as a heterosexual man.

That's society's consensus choice. It can be changed.

Nothing in real-life contradicts this - in fact I'd actually argue that real-life feminists are far, far worse than internet feminists. There are SOME feminists, for example here on /u/purplepilldebate, who aren't batshit insane. But in real-life? There are actually feminists teaching Gender Studies courses in University, and who've managed to convince the administration that such courses are required for graduation. Those courses are nothing more than male-shaming courses, they're far more harmful than internet feminists saying mean things.

I think men who literally just don't give a shit about their gender garbage take those courses with a grain of salt.

Only people who have become enraged at Phantom Feminism honestly give a shit about the academic angle.

Your rhetoric is far too into lockstep with what your own likely candidate-choices want you to believe-- even if you don't vote.

It's too convenient. It seems just as Machiavellian and convenient (or "useful idiot") as the Comments-Section Leftists that I only tolerate bc they tend to vote the way I prefer.

You seem like you're being used by politicians.

I had no idea you were anti-welfare, anti-taxation, etc, etc, etc.... Knowing that, it seems wayyyyyyy to stereotypical for it to have nothing to do with politicians trying to manipulate you.

[–]BPremium1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVilla1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

toxic masculinity originated from an early manifestation of the MRA movement (the 'mythopoetic men's movement' to be specific.)

and of course women attacked their own gender role... at the time of feminism's emergence it was the more limiting of the two. if men were told that they had to submit and defer to their wives or the women in their lives they would have rebelled en masse too. when a group is denied rights and agency they will inevitably rebel. feminism has succeeded in all but dismantling the requirements of the traditional female gender role but men are clinging to the male gender role to their detriment. what we need is a better understanding of societal roles vs. individuals (so that we can critique one without attacking the other) and a more open forum to discuss the ways that men are limited by the frailty of masculinity.

[–]GlassWormm1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

feminism has succeeded in all but dismantling the requirements of the traditional female gender role

I would argue they have basically have dismantled the female gender role, I mean women least in the US are far more free of their gender role than that of men are.

men are clinging to the male gender role to their detriment

Ya because it still being heavily reinforced and that shaming men for it is only making them want to cling to it more so.

what we need is a better understanding of societal roles vs. individuals (so that we can critique one without attacking the other) and a more open forum to discuss the ways that men are limited by the frailty of masculinity.

What we need is men's voices not being silence and told they are mansplaining and/or that derailing when they do speak. More so men need a chair and that a spot at the gender discussion table. As it stands now feminists and that women dominate the discussion along with their issues. Men's issues at this point come third to that of LGBT issues it seems as feminists make more noise and effort on those issues than that of something like male suicide. More so we need feminism to stop being pov of women and the male pov be part of the picture. But this will never likely to happen as feminists are never going to give up control over the discussion on gender issues and never allow men such a thing.

[–]future_space_boobs1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

mansplaining is a specific thing

It was a specific thing. Now its used to shut down men's voices unless they promote "women are good men are bad" talking points of feminism.

and men can't sit around waiting for feminism to save them.

Despite all those claims that feminism is about gender equality, its never going to address men's issues and when it does its only because its convenient to.

would require the MRA to legitimate itself and separate itself from "the manosphere" and get over it's infighting issues.

Like how feminism is having troubles with its white female middle class feminism and has huge internal fighting with not addressing minority women's issues (notice how minority males are totally and utterly left out in the discussion so much for that "intersectionality")?

I'm not sure that'll ever happen, as even men on this sub don't seem to think such a thing would be possible or necessary.

"Half" the men on this sub are RP and want nothing more than to bring back the 1950's household and have zero interest in breaking free of their gender roles. The other "half" are BP that say they want to break free but could care less in doing anything for what ever reasons. That said at this point it's simply not possible to do. Any noticeable attempt to do so WILL likely be blocked and/or fought by feminists as feminists have shown time and time again any effort put to address men's issues no matter what is fought against. Does not matter what the issue. Combine this with society fighting against men and can you really blame men for thinking otherwise?

[–]future_space_boobs1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have never seen mansplaining used to shut down a man earnestly discussing his experiences.

Once again, feminism isn't a men's movement. It aims to achieve gender equality by elevating women to the level of men, but it is not concerned with specific men's issues. men will have to be their own advocates and stop expecting feminism to take on their cause. it's not our fight. at some point men have to be their own advocate.

Yes, feminism has plenty of issues... it's spread very thin right now and is still figuring out intersectionality. but it's a 150 year old movement at this point, it's established. The MRM has failed to launch or even cleave significantly from the PUA spaces it was once associated with. the infighting among its "leaders" gets more press than its issues do... it won't be taken seriously until it takes itself seriously.

We live in a golden age of activism. with the internet it's easier than it ever has been to publish and disperse content to ten's of millions of people. if you want change, you can achieve change. not bothering because "it'll get blocked" is just lazy. every movement has been fought and blocked at some point, you either fight past it or you give up. women didn't have full rights of citizens when they took up feminism, they were up against more than culture warriors and they persevered. the MRM has basically declared defeat before they even left the gate. I think the real problem is that as long as they're getting sex and validation, men become complacent and lose that drive to change.

[–]findingmrnemo1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have never seen mansplaining used to shut down a man earnestly discussing his experiences.

Seen it happen in feminist subs and elsewhere.

Once again, feminism isn't a men's movement.

Ya I know, but then again don't claim to be a gender equality movement when your not about addressing men's issues. And feminism doesn't want women equal to men, they want them more equal to men, this has been shown repeatedly by feminists especially in their actions. From blocking advocacy for men to taking away help from men. Which is bit ironic given how much you feminists claim to be all about gender equality, but as I mentioned already feminists want women to be more equal than men.

it's spread very thin right now

And its going to be spread even more thinner as its popularity of feminism declines and more women reject feminism as they should.

The MRM has failed to launch or even cleave significantly from the PUA spaces it was once associated with.

Despite the two having never associated with each other nor ever been one in the same. MRM by and large has nothing to do with PUA. There's some crossover only because of TRP being in both camps, but beyond that no. As far as MRA's not doing anything apparently you don't even do any attempt to follow MRA's ore that keep tabs on them. As if you did you would have known about CAFE, which of course is being fought against by feminists (heaven forbid one does something for men let alone without permision from feminists). More so look at how much MRA's bring up men's issues online. And despite the problems with MRA's it has made feminism (a so called gender equality movement) to actually talk about men's issues more.

women didn't have full rights of citizens when they took up feminism, they were up against more than culture warriors and they persevered.

Feminism was only up against society itself. MRA's are up against society and that feminism. Which is more than ironic for feminism to do. But as you said your self feminism isn't a men's movement as such feminism is going to fight against anything not about women and focus on them. Feminists love to say it doesn't have to be a zero sum game but so often it is.

I think the real problem is that as long as they're getting sex and validation, men become complacent and lose that drive to change.

Do you honestly think in the early years/days of feminism they where knocking on doors and doing something? In many ways MRA's are where feminism was in the early years. Angry, upset, lashing out etc. MRA's could care less about sex and validation, they care more about the issues and won't stop until they are addressed.

[–]blackheartblackmask 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]future_space_boobs1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]findingmrnemo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VermiciousKnidzz 16 points16 points16 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

ive seen a trend of Red Pillers having masculinity so fragile that they put the responsibility on their wives

once in a while theres a Red Pill Wife thread congratulating themselves when they dont tell their husbands what to do, no matter how mundane and innocent it is. husbands that lose it when their wifes tell them what to do is fragile masculinity.

men whose masculinity is disturbed by women earning more than them is fragile masculinity.

once i had a roomate asking my girlfriend about her cross-stitching hobby and when she offered to teach him he said "ah, nah, that wouldnt be good for my masculinity." dudes that refrain from otherwise good experiences for fear of not being manly have fragile masculinity.

being afraid of being seen as anything other than a stubborn manly-man is fragile masculinity, especially when its to the point that you go to bizarre lengths in your day-to-day and rage at your partner when she disturbs that

edit: masculinity is also fragile in dudes that put so much effort into being stoic all the time. their entire identity is hanging on the thread of not acting like a human being with emotion and they put other men down for showing emotion. and then they blame feminism for men being told to "man up" all the time, but thats another debate...

masculinity being your basis of identity and confidence is just weird to me in general. im a dude but i dont have much interest in being masculine. some days i do, i guess. im more interested in just doing what i want as i feel like it. ha

[–]GlassWormm 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The numbers are quite different in this study

24% of men vs 46% of women said it was essential for them that their partner earned as much as they did

47% of men vs 69% of women wanted a partner who makes/will make a lot of money

33% of men vs 61% of women wanted a partner with successful career.

Do women are more about money? Yes. But a lot of men care too, a lot more than Red Pillers claim. The difference between sexes is only ~20% in most of these. More than half of women wouldn't reject a man if he earned less than them. And almost half of men were more attracted to a rich woman, and around a third preferred a woman who made more money than them or had a successful career.

These are still big differences.

Also, the reasons behind the preferences, where they are the same for men and women, may differ. For example, many more men than women, amongst those who do prefer wealthier partners, might do so because it better insures that they are not dating or marrying gold diggers, something men have a very sensitive aversion to. Kanye West even cited his wife's wealth as an insurance against this and one of the reasons why he was interested in her. Paul McCartney also just happened to marry a very wealthy woman after he was divorce-raped by his previous wife.

I suspect that women’s reasons for preferring wealthier partners has more to do with security, finding a provider and the validation that comes from being selected by successful men with options. Men don’t tend to have these preoccupations with prospective partners and are more inclined to get validation from being selected by beautiful women who are not gold diggers.

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

These are still big differences.

See, here's the beauty of interpreting statistics. You can have two people seeing exactly the same facts, something solid and objective, yet interpret them in a completely different way, depending on where they put the emphasis. One could look at this and say "Yup, this confirms Red Pill, women care more about money than men," Or you could look at this and say "Huh, this is pretty different from what Red Pill and traditionalists claim, so many men actually do care about money a lot, whereas plenty of women don't."

many more men than women, amongst those who do prefer wealthier partners, might do so because it better insures that they are not dating or marrying gold diggers, something men have a very sensitive aversion to.

Why wouldn't a rich woman prefer a rich man for exactly the same reason? If she's had experiences of men going after her only for money, it would make sense for her to prefer an equally rich man so that she could feel assured he likes her for who she is, not for what she can buy him.

Alternative, women might prefer men who are more well-off not because they want to leech off those men's money, but because it increases the likelihood of relationship being more stable and durable And men might prefer well-off women for the same reasons. Because, all else being equal, it's definitely better to be with a well-off person, for both men and women. If men care about their children's wellbeing, why wouldn't they prefer a woman who was better capable of taking care of the said children?

And I don't see why men couldn't gain validation from dating a successful woman either. Especially if she's also very attractive (and richer people tend to be more attractive, both men and women). In that case, she'd have many options, more than a woman who's attractive but poor.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

These are still big differences. 
See, here's the beauty of interpreting statistics. You can have two people seeing exactly the same facts, something solid and objective, yet interpret them in a completely different way, depending on where they put the emphasis. One could look at this and say "Yup, this confirms Red Pill, women care more about money than men," Or you could look at this and say "Huh, this is pretty different from what Red Pill and traditionalists claim, so many men actually do care about money a lot, whereas plenty of women don't."

Different interpretations are unavoidable, especially given the crudeness of stats and the unavoidable missing information.

many more men than women, amongst those who do prefer wealthier partners, might do so because it better insures that they are not dating or marrying gold diggers, something men have a very sensitive aversion to. 
Why wouldn't a rich woman prefer a rich man for exactly the same reason? If she's had experiences of men going after her only for money, it would make sense for her to prefer an equally rich man so that she could feel assured he likes her for who she is, not for what she can buy him.

Some might, but the general proclivity of women across the population is to try and marry up, a tendency that has some basis in biology and has been observed scientifically. Men don’t tend to exhibit this proclivity and prioritize beauty over someone’s socioeconomic position much more than women do.

Alternative, women might prefer men who are more well-off not because they want to leech off those men's money, but because it increases the likelihood of relationship being more stable and durable And men might prefer well-off women for the same reasons. Because, all else being equal, it's definitely better to be with a well-off person, for both men and women. If men care about their children's wellbeing, why wouldn't they prefer a woman who was better capable of taking care of the said children?

Well, I did say that women look for security in a partner. That amounts to the stability and durability you speak of. Of course, theoretically it is conceivable that the men who are attracted to well-off women are attracted to them for the same reasons, and perhaps a portion of them are, but from what we observe about the many differences between men and women in this area and others, I don’t think that the motivations will align. In my observations, men are not particularly concerned about socioeconomic security in a prospective partner, from the point of view of their own security. Having said that, the prospect of having to care for children and the current, challenging, economic realities for a lot of people may mean that more men are placing a greater importance on the financial strength of partners than usual. However, this would not be true of wealthy men.

And I don't see why men couldn't gain validation from dating a successful woman either. Especially if she's also very attractive (and richer people tend to be more attractive, both men and women). In that case, she'd have many options, more than a woman who's attractive but poor.

Men don’t tend to base women’s attractiveness on their level of success. It’s the physical and relational personality traits that draw men to women. Men know that these are the things that most other men find attractive, so will be far more flattered if they are chosen over other men by a beautiful woman with a wonderful personality, than by an average looking female CEO of a blue chip company, let alone someone far lower down the rung but in a position of importance. Beautiful women are simply more coveted by men and have more relationship options. In any case, men get more of their validation from their own abilities and sense of themselves than from women.

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Some might, but the general proclivity of women across the population is to try and marry up, a tendency that has some basis in biology and has been observed scientifically. Men don’t tend to exhibit this proclivity and prioritize beauty over someone’s socioeconomic position much more than women do.

Yeah, it's pretty convenient to redefine "marrying up" in a way that acknowledges money as the only legitimate value, thus making women look more shallow as if they're the only ones who want to marry someone they see as equal or better than them, even though men are much more likely to marry someone younger and more attractive than themselves. A rich man could get himself a new wife 10 years younger than the previous one and replace it with yet another younger one as she develops the first wrinkles and nobody would call him "hypergamous".

In my observations, men are not particularly concerned about socioeconomic security in a prospective partner, from the point of view of their own security.

Clearly your observations aren't very accurate, according to this study.

Men don’t tend to base women’s attractiveness on their level of success.

Why do you assume that women base men's attractiveness on their level of success either? Why couldn't it be that, like you yourself said, a well-off man seems more secure and more suited for relationship? Or that there's a correlation between being well-off and tall, smart and confident, which there definitely is? That would make much more sense because personality, looks and intelligence are a lot more intrinsic than your credit card. Women aren't having sex with men's credit cards or their stash of shares, they're having sex with a man himself. They don't fall in love with men over their money. If they date/marry someone because of the money, then they're not in love with them, they're in love with their money. Same for men.

You might find this article interesting

Men know that these are the things that most other men find attractive, so will be far more flattered if they are chosen over other men by a beautiful woman with a wonderful personality, than by an average looking female CEO of a blue chip company

I said if they were both equally good-looking.

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Some might, but the general proclivity of women across the population is to try and marry up, a tendency that has some basis in biology and has been observed scientifically. Men don’t tend to exhibit this proclivity and prioritize beauty over someone’s socioeconomic position much more than women do. 
Yeah, it's pretty convenient to redefine "marrying up" in a way that acknowledges money as the only legitimate value, thus making women look more shallow as if they're the only ones who want to marry someone they see as equal or better than them, even though men are much more likely to marry someone younger and more attractive than themselves. A rich man could get himself a new wife 10 years younger than the previous one and replace it with yet another younger one as she develops the first wrinkles and nobody would call him "hypergamous".

I’m not redefining anything. The definition of marrying up is to marry someone above your socioeconomic position. Anything else is a completely different issue.

In my observations, men are not particularly concerned about socioeconomic security in a prospective partner, from the point of view of their own security. 
Clearly your observations aren't very accurate, according to this study.

The study does not establish that men seek personal security in the socioeconomic position of their prospective partners. Men just simply don't tend to do this. A lot of it comes down to evolution and biology.

Men don’t tend to base women’s attractiveness on their level of success. 
Why do you assume that women base men's attractiveness on their level of success either? Why couldn't it be that, like you yourself said, a well-off man seems more secure and more suited for relationship? Or that there's a correlation between being well-off and tall, smart and confident, which there definitely is? That would make much more sense because personality, looks and intelligence are a lot more intrinsic than your credit card. Women aren't having sex with men's credit cards or their stash of shares, they're having sex with a man himself. They don't fall in love with men over their money. If they date/marry someone because of the money, then they're not in love with them, they're in love with their money. Same for men.

It’s all part of the same thing. A man’s level of success is a source of attraction for all the reasons that you mentioned here. It’s part of that whole provider and protector dynamic that most women are consciously and subconsciously drawn to, in a way that men are not. Confidence, status and height are factors in this too.

Like most differences between men and women, they have arisen from the different evolutionary selection pressures that men and women have been subjected to. Much of this is instinctive lizard brain stuff. To quote Camille Paglia:

“If middle class feminists think they conduct their love lives perfectly rationally, without any instinctual influences from biology, they are imbeciles”.

You might find this article interesting

I probably wouldn’t find it interesting. I’d have to look at the study to be sure of what it said. Articles often mischaracterise the findings.

Men know that these are the things that most other men find attractive, so will be far more flattered if they are chosen over other men by a beautiful woman with a wonderful personality, than by an average looking female CEO of a blue chip company

I said if they were both equally good-looking.

If they were both equally good looking, then a poor man might go for the CEO, since he needs the money, but he may also prefer the wonderful personality, which I would say for most men tends to be on the more feminine, sweet, humble and submissive side, not your typical masculine female CEO. A well-off man would most definitely go for the person with the wonderful personality, without the high flying career, since they don’t need the money and they would probably prefer that the woman was around to cater to their needs and look after domestic duties. Men are not huge fans of career women given the choice.

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ppdthrowawaiRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]markd315Moderate feminist man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]trpobservereats ass1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

i think it can be fragile, for some men. i don't know that the "male products" is quite an example since they do that for women too, but i suppose a different example (that i've seen in action even here) is makeup. a man can easily wear a little bit of foundation or concealer to cover up skin problems without it being noticeable, but there are men here that insist makeup is only an option for women, and that any man with even the slightest amount of makeup on will look like he's in drag. the mere suggestion gets these over-the-top claims and worries in response.

in the same vein, acting and theater (and the makeup and things involved) is probably something that they'd ridicule a man for if it was his profession, even though it requires quite a bit of skill and physical ability (and confidence, and charisma, and all the traits they think are so great and masculine otherwise). so yeah, i think some men do have fragile masculinity, and in many ways, it's sad. some are more resistant to it than others... but i look forward to reaching a point where no one cares and everyone just does what they want (within reason) without questioning the masculinity or femininity of the thing. it's an easier life for sure.

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Honesty and authenticity. Men usually get face blemishes from work. It's a point of pride for a man to have callused hands.

plenty of men get embarrassed at blemishes, and they're not suddenly women for doing so. there's no shame in wanting to have clear skin or show off a clear face to the world (some of the most famous actors and public faces wear makeup frequently for this very reason, even channing tatum and brad pitt). some men don't care about having callused hands and for some, they could even be a problem (like some surgeons and doctors). men without callused hands are still men, and you don't need callused hands to do a job that is important or that you're proud of.

if blemishes and hand calluses are part of what you're into, there's nothing wrong with that and i hope the men who feel that way get to do what they find enjoyable and fulfilling. but it's a problem when men and boys are told that they aren't men without blemishes and hand calluses, or when men who don't care about or want blemishes and hand calluses get them anyway because they believe they're less of a man otherwise (and think the same of other men). that's the problem here.

As to the rest, if I read it correctly, theater is hard work, men don't want to do it because masculinity. therefore, men aren't men, but posers.

i didn't say men don't want to do theater; i said some men would ridicule men in theater for doing something they consider feminine. i don't doubt that male ballet dancers get the same shit, even though athletes and football players are expected to go through similar training because of how great it is physically. yes, it is a fragile kind of masculinity that drives a man to hate and ridicule men that do theater or ballet because "it's so gay lol".

pretty hard to read this as anything but a jab at men, with some plausible deniability thrown into the mix

your chosen interpretation speaks volumes.

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu 4 points4 points4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EchoZeroElevenPursuing Answers to Unknown Questions3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]EchoZeroElevenPursuing Answers to Unknown Questions1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

It's hard for the majority of men to be considered masculine.

The stereotype of a masculine man is someone who is tall, broad-shouldered, has a large frame, is aggressive, has low inhibition, takes risks and sleeps with many women.

Most of the things that define masculinity is genetically determined and completely out of your control. I'd even claim that masculinity is ascribed and can't be achieved.

For example, me being 5'5" means that I'll never be considered masculine, no matter what I try to do. I have a lot of masculine hobbies like boxing, grappling, weight lifting and marksmanship, and I'm entering the reserves this summer, but I'll never be as masculine as a man who is just large.

Some other toxic aspects of masculinity include the shaming of any emotional expression and the propensity to solve problems alone, both that lead to men having the larger suicide rate.

So to answer, yes masculinity is fragile. It's not an easy thing to acquire and maintain.

However, masculinity will still remain because women by and large reward masculinity with sex.

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The Asian men that are found attractive tend to be much taller than average. I'm assuming you are talking about Asian men in Korean dramas and whatnot?

Korean and Japanese seem to have large followings, though i'm sure the same occurs in other Asian countries too. from what i've seen, the heights range from 5'6" to about 5'9" on average. there are a few above or below that, but generally those seem to be the heights i see. at least according to Wikipedia, men in Japan and Korea are on average 3-4 inches shorter than men in the USA.

Tom Cruise is an exception, because not only is he not that short (5'7"), he's rich and people never see his full stature in movies anyways. Your average shirt man is not as rich and famous as Tom Cruise is, and suffers greatly for that and for not conforming to the masculine image.

the point is that he's attractive and shorter; i wasn't talking about money at all because it's not what made him a heartthrob. do you think he's ugly and charmless and always has been? come on.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Tom Cruise is an exception, because not only is he not that short (5'7"), he's rich and people never see his full stature in movies anyways. Your average shirt man is not as rich and famous as Tom Cruise is, and suffers greatly for that and for not conforming to the masculine image.

the point is that he's attractive and shorter; i wasn't talking about money at all because it's not what made him a heartthrob. do you think he's ugly and charmless and always has been? come on.

This is a dumb example because 99% of people don't know how tall Tom Cruise is anyway. He's filmed in a way that makes him look tall. I've even heard of him being put on a walkway so that he'll look taller than his female costar. (The fact that they did that should tell you something right there.) If women don't know the guy is 5'7" and they're not standing next to him, then his actual height is irrelevant. It's his apparent height that women are keying in on - and the vast majority of people think he's taller than he is. If you placed him next to an actual woman, I'm sure her attraction to him would take a hit - though it would probably still not counteract his fame, wealth, and looks.

[–]-almost-blue- 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrispyMcSockingtonPillar of the community2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

Masculinity is a social constructs, made up of both biological and social factors that. It seems like masculinity is not congenital, but rather something that is achieved

Masculinity is not a social construct. Considering certain activities to be more or less masculine is. Masculinity is only as fragile as the support men receive when they are not masculine. For example, if they suffer humiliation, social isolation and rejection for being different, you will bet men will not stray from activities and behaviors considered masculine.

This is unfortunately a failure on society for not providing men support when they are weak. Think domestic abuse, rape or even desiring a partner. In the first two instances there are barely any shelters or people refuse to believe it can happen to a man. In the last case, men have not been given the same leeway women have if they choose to abandon traditional gender roles. A woman working, wearing pants and a suit, being aggressive and even "liberating" her sexuality through promiscuity is seen as a step forward. In other words, doing the things men have done while shaming anyone who finds it unattractive.

Now think of a man being passive, wearing a dress or makeup as well as being sexually conservative. He may even want to be a stay at home dad or prefer women approach him. No man is offered the same freedom, especially not from women. So men now have to compete with women for masculinity and if they desire partners, cannot flip the script like women have.

Since they are not being encouraged or being rewarded sexually (as in women finding feminine behavior attractive) they cannot be anything but masculine and rigidly so. Women even talk about how men find their behavior bitchy or intimidating hence they cannot land a man, as if he is afraid of a real woman. But if she is not going to sleep with a feminine man, why shouod he have to desire a masculine woman, who may even introduce power struggles into the relationship?

If women want the traditionally masculine roles, they have to understand they are placing themselves and men into an awkward position unless they find feminine or passive men irresistible and are willing to take the lead on things like approaching and dates. Masculinity will continue to be fragile for as long as we push the narrative that men who are masculine or who behave that way are somehow a problem for women, and if we continue to punish men who do not fit the mold of what it means to be a man.

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]blackheartblackmask 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Princeso_Bubblegum☭ The real red pill ☭1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GinSmokeLies 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with boiling everything down to women just because of "sex." Men are much more directly dictating what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for "men" to do.

Men aren’t out there, in any way worth mentioning, dictating what other men need to do to qualify as men. Most men just mind their own business, live their own lives and associate with the people who interest them. You have all types of different men out there, from the masculine to the effeminate, with few trying to directly dictate anything to the other about what it means to be a man. It's a big world out there and all stripes can live in it.

Getting sex is a far far greater influencer and motivator than the practically non-existent pressure from other men to conform to some masculine ideal.

Obviously, art and entertainment deal in ideals, but that's an unavoidable result of free expression, creativity and commerce.

[–]GlassWormm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]watch_for_ice0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremium1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BPremium1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DucksCanDanceRed-ish Man1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intothekeep2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DucksCanDanceRed-ish Man2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Except that, if you would change some pronouns, i doubt you'd say the same.

Imagine, for example, if someone would say "Lol, you're femininity is so fragile that you can't handle someone asking questions?"

Would you say that's an observation, or an attack?

Or this one: "Lol, you're blackness is so fragile that you can't handle people disagreeing with BLM?"

Would the people who were affected by these statements just be fragile and insecure in their femininity or blackness? Where is the line? How much can you attack someone and then just accuse them of being fragile for reacting negatively for it?

Also, ironically, you've just proven his and many peoples arguments in this thread about how fragile masculininty isn't some sort of male-liberation argument, but simply a way to shame men for not acting the way that you personally think they should act.

Now, i don't 100% disagree with you. The people who would react the strongest to these are probably those who are the most insecure. But you're being a dick about it, and as such really just proving the original posters point and completely undermining your own.

And finally, once again ironically, you're reinforcing "toxic masculinity" by shaming him when he feels attacked and expresses it, and basically telling him to "Man up"

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

What does disagreeing with BLM have to do with blackness? What is blackness? BLM, despite what you've been told by anti-PC sources and youtube, BLM literally is about black lives mattering. It has nothing to do with "blackness" and I'm not quite sure what that is. I mean, you could actually dig into the hyper masculinity in some rap videos, but again, I don't quite know what blackness is.

Same with femininity so fragile. You say, well, if someone said this, well, would people say that in the real world as a response to bullying or people overreacting to something. And what about is it about femininity that means you can't handle someone asking questions? What does that even mean?

So the line is the real world. And no, masculinity so fragile and even things like the mugs with male tears are simply reactions to either bullying or overreactions. Again, we live in a world where bullies are trying to get sympathy. And in the immortal words of Scott Steiner, you may have the sympy of the people, but you don't have my sympy at all.

[–]GlassWormm 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]andrewisgood1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BPremiumMeh0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BPremium1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]andrewisgood1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DucksCanDanceRed-ish Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DucksCanDanceRed-ish Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wont_tell_i_refuseRed Orchestra2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]hauswyfetechno 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]q31 3 points3 points3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There is a lot of articles online about the frailty of masculinity.

written by women

The main point in a lot of these articles I read is that masculinity is a very narrow set of behaviours and if you do not conform to one of these behaviours you are not a "real man".

Implies men are pretending. also implies female judgement. draw a circle around things men do and you get a much better definition. though 7 is largely going away, I'd almost credit Milo Yanopolous for this, and other conservative gays. Men get to define masculinity.

Making "male versions" of beauty products, alcohol and even candles, so men do not feel feminine for using them

yes, women making ads, it's hard to interpret as anything but trying to convince men to fem-up

Making words such as "bromance" and saying "no homo" so they are not seen as gay

The fact that two men having any sort of close relationship is instantly seen by society as homosexual should give you pause. Men are fighting tooth and nail to maintain bonds with other men, little terms like this show our little ways of getting around shame for it.

Masculinity is a social constructs, made up of both biological and social factors that. It seems like masculinity is not congenital, but rather something that is achieved.

This is close to it. Men aren't intrinsic, they are made through achievement. Rites of manhood existed for a reason, my question for you. If you're right, what do you plan to do with this new 'wisdom?' I highly doubt it's to the betterment of men. In fact, over the past half century, women have gotten to define masculinity, and it's largely been a failure, up there with the USSRs western bloc

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]darksoldierkPurple Pill1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Making male versions of products isn't about masculinity, it's about product preference. As a guy, I don't like using hygiene products that smell like roses, strawberries or whatever else. It isn't a masculinity thing, It's a "this smells so fucking terrible" kinda thing. In addition, a lot of the "female versions" of products have been marked up to ridiculous prices because women will pay those prices for that stuff. Why should I pay $30 for a bottle of shampoo just because women would? It isn't any different than having "Female versions" of razor blades. A razor blade is a razor blade whether you use it to shave your face or your legs. But women tend to buy the ones that are advertised for women. It isn't a "Fragile femininity" thing, it's a marketing thing .Women have also driven up the price of female razor blades because they refuse to use a a cheaper alternative. I switched to a double edge razor 2 years ago, it cost me $12 for 100 razors and the initial equipment was $35. Why? because it's ridiculous that I was being expected to pay $30 for 3 blades that last 4 months.

Using words like "bromance" and "no homo" isn't really a masculinity thing. As we all know, men and women can't really be friends. At some point one of the two will start having feelings for each other. Now that society has made being gay more acceptable, men are beginning to wonder if their the men around them are gay or if they have feelings for them. We don't want to lose our male friendships and we don't want to end up in a world where men can't be friends with each other similar to how men can't be friends with women. So the terms "bro" or "no homo" is like a wall that distinguishes a friendly comment from a romantic one. If women were more accepting of these kinds of phrases, maybe men and woman could become better friends

Masculinity may see frail in our modern world, but there is a reason. We are going through a major change. Women have decided to erase the line that separates masculinity and femininity. Masculinity is being attacked on all fronts. Something that breaks down when it is being attacked on all fronts isn't fragile. Masculinity has stood up fairly well considering that it has been antagoynized and treated as the "Boogyman" for the last 50 years.

[–]GoldPisseR1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lady_Schmoobleydong1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusicbluepill redneck1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GlassWormm 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusicbluepill redneck0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wombatinaburrowfeminist marsupial0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusicbluepill redneck0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SetConsumesAlways Becoming0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wont_tell_i_refuseRed Orchestra0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu 1 points1 points1 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusicbluepill redneck0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusicbluepill redneck2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusicbluepill redneck1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusicbluepill redneck0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scurvemuch 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TW_CountryMusic1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IamTheWalkingMenu1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PaperStreetVillaTRP Moderator0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rpquestion7 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cturner2591 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alth12Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ifelsedowhilelocal cop - cherry top0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ContrarianZRealist0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SexyMcSexingtonThe Alpha and the Omega0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electra_CuteChristian, Flat Earther, Anti-Vaxxer, Astrologer0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwinoutex-Red Pill, now Purple Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Falkner19920 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Falkner19920 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Falkner19920 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]-almost-blue- 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Falkner19920 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThorLivesSkeptical Purple Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blackheartblackmask 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]despisedlove2Reality Pill Tradcon RP0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You have fragile and unforgiving confused.

A man has to prove that he is a man, day in and day out. This examination starts with puberty, and ends with death. In every action, and thought, there are some litmus tests that need to be met. Everytime you face a situation of conflict. Everytime you chase a woman. Everytime you have sex. Fathering a child. Providing for family. Fighting for people that rely on you. Giving your word to a friend. This is also why men have to be generally more direct, honest, moral and reliable.

A woman simply has to show up, and in sexual situations, consent to have sex and spread her legs.

A man is known and celebrated for what he accomplishes and does.

A woman is known and celebrated for who she is.

Masculinity is deep, of enduring value and worth preserving. Its pinnacle usually corresponds to the pinnacle of a civilization.

You calling masculinity fragile is, to put it mildly, very ironic. However, insecure feminists projecting on others is both par for the course these days, and a sign that this society is in decline, possibly terminal decline.

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gasparddelanuit0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

u/the_calibre_cat

PART 1 (cont in Replies)

I'm not going to respond to all four of your responses.

Definitely not-- it went really long. I really did start seeing your evaluation as a good learning experience.

First off, I can't really take that seriously. I identify as "purple pill," which is acknowledgement of the obvious, beaten-to-death Blue Pill axioms - I don't think gay and transgender people should be excommunicated from society, I don't think women should be forbidden from working/voting/owning property.

My issue is that perpetuating the current state of masculinity for males is not healthy, period.

TRP adds additional Dark Tetrad and call it 'a second enlightenment' kind of experience, and it's extremely toxic.

Purple Pill is better at this, but you still seem to be running the risk of leading TRP stuff into a feedback loop by pushing any notions of legitimacy.

Especially with the anti-leftist crap at the end here. Nothing's wrong with leftist or rightist inherently. They've both just been twisted once they've been politicized (taken beyond ideology and into tactics).

I just believe that rightism leads to more toxicity in large countries, and that (in my country) rightism is tied up in the Neoreaction movement which includes this weird mix of blatantly expousing Dark Tetrad as some kind of Thing People Can't Control, while also doubling-back and admonishing others for expressing Dark Tetrad behaviors.

Their ethical codes as a coalition would need to be much, much more well-defined before I would ever consider aligning with them politically.

I just can't add my fuel to that fire, even if I agreed with it more than I do. (And I agree with some of it-- I'm centre-left).

My point is that TRP doesn't exist in a vacuum, and even what you're expousing as Purple Pill (it sounds "Magenta"-- *red-leaning) still wraps itself around and into the neoreaction movement, and I believe that movement is playing with fire (Dark Tetrad) and truly enjoying the suffering it causes far too much.

It's bad-faithed actions.

And, no, I don't believe the small circle-jerks that develop to make fun of Neoreaction are anywhere near as directly and immediately damaging.

If Blue and Red are both "immoral", Red is so much more unEthical to me (cause and effect, consequentialism, big picture) that even the amount you've presented so far raises some huge red flags.

My main issue with the "immorality" (really, immaturity) of the leftism in my country is more to do with how it can tank the movement, not so much if it's an irredeemably dangerous force that will never-- in any time period-- benefit humanity.

The only reason I have to provide a disclaimer for that low-hanging fruit is because of the propensity of Blue Pill adherents to assume that anyone who disagrees with them on anything else, is probably some kind of anti-egalitarian Nazi.

And that's pretty dumb. An example of the immaturity (if you wanna call it "immorality") of BP circlejerks.

Those would be useful idiots. I stand to lose almost nothing if Nazi is used a slur-- I don't like authoritarianism, so even if Nazi is described in its weird Cerberus way (a) right-wing authoritarianism, OR (b) "radical centrist", OR (c) "national socialist", none of that rhetoric really damages society bc all of those movements are far too statist to ever be a good thing.

Otherwise, the immature anti-fascist Muh Nazi people-- whose rhetoric I do occasionally co-opt to agitate people politically-- are just useful idiots to me.

The Red is most of the uncomfortable truths that Blue is in outright denialism of - like the fact that women reward traditional masculinity with sexual attention,

Currently, to some degree, but less than before. It would end if both men and women on all sides of the political spectrum made a decision to deliberately devalue such a limited definition of masculinity.

I believe that men did this. It benefited them for centuries and now it's backfiring.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

u/the_calibre_cat

PART 2

like the fact that men are attracted to thin, shapely women, like the fact that women are the gatekeepers of sex, etc.

I think that has to do with media exposure. I went no-porn for awhile-- and refused to engage in mass media, and even social media-- and my sexual tastes spread out to include much more stuff that-- after returning to porn-- I started veering away from.

Note, "No-porn" was not No-Fap or voluntary celibacy. The less involved in media (pornographized culture) I was, the less the appearance norms affected my brain.

Age-based preferences evaporated, fitness preferences, facial features to some degree, only disliked certain proportions or obesity, etc....

For the same reason that I think socialism is an idiotic political ideology, I think your "hammered-out, smoothed-out consensus" is nonsense: There will never be that hammered-out, smoothed-out consensus.

That's kinda weird to believe though. Purple Pill is hammering itself out to a large degree, and over time, coalitions build around those kinds of ideas. I think the genders are somewhat pathological, so they'll regress to the mean on all sides once their social staying-powers powers are diminished.

And this only applies to one coalition. There will remain rad-fems and reactionary masculinists. There will just be a burgeoning third option bc the binaries are losing their authority.

No one will ever agree on everything, society-wide, and in fact, the more people do, the greater the incentive to break from it.

Right. Which is why gender egalitarianism (on a fundamental level) that involves more mindful awareness of problematic motivations, actions, etc... will become more accessible to some people.

You think women will ever reward non-traditional men, if we all just got down and held hands and sing kumbaya.

Considering I literally just made a post about how Kumbayas are ineffective and even embraced Machiavellian escalation tactics, you're clearly superimposing your anti-"muh-leftists" crap onto me. Which-- again, almost stereotypically-- includes this notion that we're all these postmodern douchebags who can't develop boundaries.

I think that's a fucking pipe dream, and the people who are really going to win are going to be the same people who have always won: Those who got down to business, had some nasty sex, and had kids.

You're overestimating the amount of women remaining (after the older ones die) that are only attracted to right-wingers, and you're also overestimating the amount of men and women in the left and centre who are becoming more purple (internally, even if they continue to align with immature Berpers), and thus building bridges to sex and reproduction that didn't exist at such a large scale until recently.

The ideologies that extoll the virtues of doing that, are the ones that win.

Those aren't necessarily virtues. If the political alignment is garbo and unethical, it's simply convenient and expedient traditionalism.

Hate to break it to you, but most people are not as Red as you-- see it as a failing ideology, or aligned with too many other failing ideologies-- and just don't spend their time on the Internet arguing about it.

I'd say once Baby Boom is dead, it will no longer be a majority of men (and even then, it's not a large majority).

You're overestimating the political power of just blatant and banal virility and libido.

For the record, that is neither going to be anti-marriage Red Pillism, and it damn sure isn't gonna be Blue Pill social justice politically-correct feminism where having babies and the nuclear family are like oppressor points.

But I think the level of credence it gives to the toxic aspects of masculinity and femininity will decrease much more than you think it will, unless either side goes into lockstep with authoritarian politics.

Which, thankfully, neither has yet, but they're both dangerously tempted right now bc of all the drama between rightism and centrism going on all over the world at present.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

And, no, I don't believe the small circle-jerks that develop to make fun of Neoreaction are anywhere near as directly and immediately damaging.

It's disingenuous to call them "small circlejerks." They aren't. Those people go out, and they vote, and they vote for right-leaning men to go out and enforce their positive-liberty, "you must work for me because I exist and can't be bothered to work" ethos on other right-leaning men who produce.

I'm not in the least bit concerned about a leftist society lasting, because it won't - I would just prefer my kids not have to live their lives through that hellscape that tends to follow social collapse. At the current time, I'm debating as to whether or not I'd even want to bring a male child into this world, since it isn't going to value him and will probably actively demonize him from the time he can understand written and spoken language.

It would end if both men and women on all sides of the political spectrum made a decision to deliberately devalue such a limited definition of masculinity.

"If everyone just did what I think they should do, the world's problems would be fixed!" ~ the motto of every failed ideology the world has ever seen.

You're overestimating the political power of just blatant and banal virility and libido.

No, I don't think I am. I'm pretty sure no species that actively takes steps to mitigate its own reproductive success is not favorably represented in the long-term. Leftism actively discourages and shames men for giving a shit about their genetic legacy, while encouraging and protecting women for giving a shit about theirs. When leftism offers men something, anything, besides "work for women, shut up, and die," you might find more success among them.

You're overestimating the amount of women remaining (after the older ones die) that are only attracted to right-wingers...

I never said women are only attracted to right-wingers. I said women are attracted to traditional masculinity, which is true. I'm not underestimating that. Feminists want to corral men into this narrow set of behavior where they're quiet, never criticize women, don't have preferences, and are okay with women actively undermining their genetic legacy - but sexually reward men who do none of these things, even if they parrot leftist talking points.

Traditional masculinity IS certainly more right-wing, but there are plenty of leftists who are traditionally masculine. They'd insist that they're not, but they're competitive, strong, muscular, assert dominance, pursue female validation, etc. That they happen to regurgitate New York Times platitudes about gay and trans people is immaterial - behavior is what gets carried forth genetically.

Long story short, I don't think men can be freed from these expectations, because social expectations will always be there and people don't exist in a vacuum.

Only because you don't want to free yourself, bc it justifies your overarching right-wing worldview.

That's a response I expect from someone not engaging in this conversation in good faith. I think you really believe what you're saying, I just think it's all bullshit, and I think genetics matters far more than the egalitarians are willing to admit - mostly because they really, really, really, really don't WANT to believe that our nature is less than perfect. It's the height of human hubris, to think that we are so distant from the beasts that roam the Earth in their wild ignorance.

Surprise, we're not - and it's not the right that's evil for respecting this, it's the left that's evil for frantically trying to suppress it. You think if you stamp it out enough, if you forbid people from ever tasting the apple by shaming the shit out of them and destroying people who even hint at that possibility, that your sociocultural engineering vis-a-vis pop culture/media/science, and government, can produce a better human.

It's the wet dream of socialists all over again, but you forget - or perhaps don't forget but actively loathe, that humans can just do things on their own. They don't need your permission to do science.

Being gate-kept by women (to some degree, not even entirely) in one-on-one relationships does not overpower generations of politically entrenched money and power, and international political alliances that are extremely gendered.

The Blue identity mindset is unveiled - that just because the people in power happen to be men, means that they're only working for the groups that they look like. Worse yet, is their insistence that we're the racist and sexist ones - not you, the Blues who ~~box~~ fucking cage people into their identities and throw away the keys.

If this is a "gendered society" that acts in the benefit of men, I'm rightly terrified of what you think is an egalitarian society, and I'm quite certain most men would be miserable in it - even those glorious millennials who take you at your word that equality of outcome will be better for everyone.

Thoughts bubbling under about violent revolution bc women are having less sex with some types of dudes but will still get into relationships with them if they really want kids.

That deserves shame. No amount of ideology justifies your call to violence. NONE.

No one's advocating violent revolution because women are picky. Women should be picky, you're arguing against that, not me.

Violent revolution because a productive class is enslaved to produce for a consumer class, on the other hand? Totally justified. I'm shocked that you chose to ignore that part (I'm not).

You can't have it both ways: "Leftists are large and in charge and too many men aren't locked in anymore and it's leading to hedonism!"

And somehow also "But it's not a big enough issue for it to affect 'most men'.

You don't need to be the majority to be large and in charge. The bulk of primary and secondary school teachers are leftists. The bulk of professors in academia, are leftists. The bulk of pop culture figures are leftists. The bulk of news media talking heads are leftists. These people constitute a spectacular minority of people, but the power they wield is easily the vast majority of it.

And yes, I'd argue most men don't want any part of this. Certainly most white men don't, and I'm quite certain most black and hispanic men have nothing nice to say about the attacks on traditional masculinity which they arguably embody and live moreso than white men - they just vote left because free stuff and decades of branding Republicans as the horrible racists.

That might actually change in the coming elections, depending on how batshit insane the left decides to go with regards to identity politics. If they know what's good for them, they'll ditch it, but I'm hoping the elect to double down, and throw a lifeline to conservatism to undermine their cash cow.

Leftists made political gains by arranging people into racial groups (while, without a hint of irony, calling everyone else racist), and that culminated in the first hints of white racial identity in this election. That's a leftist creation, not a rightist one. It'd be spectacularly disingenuous to claim that it's good and acceptable for blacks and hispanics to police their ranks of dissenters to conservatism, that they owe their political support to the left, and then become inconsolable when whites assembled into a group to represent their interests (but they did, the screeching still hasn't stopped).

Women have made incredible gains over the past century. They are, by all rights, "equal" to men in every aspect of life - but that has not stopped modern feminism from existing, nor demanding yet more. Keep pushing, because just as a white racial identity was the nightmare of race-baiters, I'm convinced that male sexual identity is the nightmare of the equality-or-death crowd.

When it imagines that "leftism" is tied to GENDER, when leftism barely fucking EXISTS, and that re-establishing some barely-scientific trash science about AWALT and AMALT debunked philosophy is JUSTIFICATION TO MURDER RANDOM CITIZENS, it will be coded as terrorism immediately.

As I have consistently said, slavery, which is what positive liberty necessarily is, provides legitimate justification for violent resistance. Blue Pillers such as yourself simply prefer to hide the reality that your state-centered redistribution is, itself, violence. Violence which is tolerable by producers, up to a point - but past that point, people are free to leave. And as leftists usually don't allow this, violence in response is entirely justified.

That's why leftists antagonize rural areas, that's why leftists attack police, that's why leftists attack private firearms ownership. Strong individuals cannot easily be subjugated by a collectivist movement. Weak ones can.

It sounds to me like you just want to murder anyone who isn't right-of-centre-right.

You've already made up your mind that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil monster, per your earlier posts. I'm not interested in murdering anybody - but past a certain point, yes, violence is warranted and necessary. Voters could demand we enslave people of African American descent, and violence would be warranted then, no? Well, when voters demand we effectively enslave people who happen to be male, then males can and yes, should embrace their power that they have voluntarily relinquished for generations.

[–]Ryuutorak1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

You've already made up your mind that anyone who disagrees with you is an evil monster,

That is not true at all. You were the one constantly accusing me of being a feminist, a Blue Piller, etc.... And launching into these treatises using the word "you"-- to remind you that I noticed this, and pointed it out to you from the beginning, I'll point to my use of the words "politically traumatized, with post-hoc rationalizations" so you can't weasel around the fact that you made no attempts to argue in good faith from the beginning-- to refer to BPers (and me) before I even expounded anything to give you any indication that I might vote against you.

You're not enslaved by women gaining some positive liberties to protect against the oppression you're calling "strength" and "rightism" and an "being less than perfect".

If you believe I've devolved into bad faith argument, and I believe you've done the same, all any continuation of this is going to do is provide you fodder to confirm your biases, and me work harder than you've done to make sure I'm not doing that.

I've so expressed in extremely meticulous detail how I vote alongside Berpers bc I find Terpers to be right-wing authoritarians who cryptologize their views to appear less authoritarian.

This is common, and it happens when anyone claims "oppression" and appeals to a remedy that installs policies that entrench further power-structures that benefit (inordinately) selective, arbitrary portions of society.

You chose to lump me in, verbally, explicitly, without provocation, multiple times with this nebulous "you", from your very first comment, and then tap-danced around your own bad faith, waited for me to get a bit angry and launch a tirade specifically against you in particular, as an individual, and then used that as some retroactive proof that I wasn't reading carefully and critically the whole time.

People get pissed off when you suck at keeping your biases in check in an argument. That doesn't mean their entire argument prior to getting pissed off was any less rigorous than it actually was.

It's a common rhetorical tactic to wait for the person to do [exactly what you were doing, when you weren't aware of it], and then use it to randomly critically revise everything they've said prior to them loosing a bit of intellectual steam during one section of an argument.

Count, objectively, how many times you used the "Universal you" to address me for an entire paragraph.

Then count how many times I did. And you tell me who's been acting in "good faith" here, you little shit.

I only saw numerous instances in which you used the "universal 'you'" from the very beginning, in which you generalized literally entire genders AND an entire half of your population, over and over AND OVER again.

Did you ever consider your relationships might be strained bc you come across as manipulative and unaware of your own manipulations?

Maybe it's not a feminine and "liberal" conspiracy? Maybe you, individually, are just a gigantic asshole and try too hard to hide it?

God, for fucks sake, embrace it.

Right-wing authoritarianism is a very specific proportion of rightists, I made it painstakingly clear why I associate you with that political alignment, and gave specific point-for-point criticisms of why I wasn't buying it.

Countering egalitarianism with authoritarianism-- and then claiming it's some kind of democratist or republican "amoral" free-market solution-- does not carry any more or less of a "mixed bag" of pros and cons than egalitarianism itself.

You ignored everything else, and used my postings as fodder for your prejudices against "muh leftists" (who, again, don't even really exist in this country in any large numbers).

You're nutpicking, which I said from the beginning. I repeat that it sounds traumatized and out-of-step with reality.

I'm not engaging you further unless you outline a hermeneutic (what you believe constitutes the objective, and what constitutes the subjective), and explicitly go point-for-point.

This debate needs to formalize, or you've lost my participation in it.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

That is not true at all. You were the one constantly accusing me of being a feminist, a Blue Piller, etc...

You demonize men as a whole ("I believe that men did this. It benefited them for centuries and now it's backfiring."), and basically regurgitate word salads that would make the postmodernist Marxist sociology professor beam with effervescent pride. There's not a thing you've said that wouldn't fit squarely within the Blue Pill, feminism, and even radical feminism.

That you just continue to insist that, no, really, you're charitable to all viewpoints is quite evidently not true - and you've said as much.

And launching into these treatises using the word "you"-- to remind you that I noticed this, and pointed it out to you from the beginning, I'll point to my use of the words "politically traumatized, with post-hoc rationalizations" so you can't weasel around the fact that you made no attempts to argue in good faith from the beginning-- to refer to BPers (and me) before I even expounded anything to give you any indication that I might vote against you.

Man, that's some bullshit - You were consistently telling me what I believe and why I believed it, using the word "you," well before I began attacking you: https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5ke415/is_masculinity_fragile/dbntt19/

To say that one of my endless frustrations of the left is the hubris they must possess to know why people believe what they do is a spectacular understatement. That denies your opponent their own agency while your proselytize the scripture of sociologists to them. You're damn right I, and just about everyone else, will get frustrated at that. I don't care that you disagree with me, but that you disagree with me because you think you completely get why I believe the things I do is a surefire way to make me angry.

You chose to lump me in, verbally, explicitly, without provocation, multiple times with this nebulous "you", from your very first comment

Here's my first comment in our exchange. At no point do I use the word "you." Your first reply, on the other hand...

You're not enslaved by women gaining some positive liberties...

You're enslaved every time anyone gains positive liberties, because those "liberties" are necessarily provided by others, compelled by force. When it's people who are sick, disabled, elderly, or otherwise unable to take care of themselves, it is reasonable to make this accord.

When it's "we're strong independent womyn who don't need no man," be prepared for objections to it - why do they need free stuff financed by working men if they're strong independent women who don't need any men? They're strong independent women who don't need any men. Seems like they can work like the rest of us to get what they want.

I've so expressed in extremely meticulous detail how I vote alongside Berpers bc I find Terpers to be right-wing authoritarians who cryptologize their views to appear less authoritarian.

I don't think T.R.P.ers are some monolithic entity, and there's plenty of their philosophy I take issue with. I don't think women are children, I don't think child support and alimony are unfair sleights against men (though they certainly can be weaponized to be), I don't think marriage is bad, etc. A lot of stupid bullshit has been allowed to be T.R.P. canon, likely fomented by the angry reactive frustration at the relentless, 24/7/365 feminist behavior-policing that has become the social norm.

But I don't think T.B.P. makes almost any effort to understand the plight of being male. To them, male = powerful and that's the end of it. It is the least nuanced philosophy I have ever read, and the amount of contempt they've whipped up towards men and boys, rooted in this fundamental lack of detail, is highly illuminating to me - and generally speaking, I don't think you're innocent of that ("...generations of politically entrenched money and power, and international political alliances that are extremely gendered." = they have dicks, therefore men have all the power).

Did you ever consider your relationships might be strained bc you come across as manipulative and unaware of your own manipulations?

No, I was a true believer in the idea that one could love and be loved back, until I wasn't. I was being with a little bit of doing, until I was penalized for it. You can talk 'til you're blue in the face about what's good for society, and how apparently I should be designing my actions according to what some sociologist at the University of Berkeley thinks I should, but I'm going to die one day - and I began to listen to my anecdotes and embrace my wild masculinity as people like you have insisted I never, ever should, and I've had far, far more success with the opposite sex, professionally, and personally than I did before.

Maybe it's not a feminine and "liberal" conspiracy? Maybe you, individually, are just a gigantic asshole and try too hard to hide it?

A little from column A, a little from column B. Egalitarians extend their empathy to their in-group, which is easy, cheap, and not terribly egalitarian at all.

Right-wing authoritarianism is a very specific subjection of rightists, I made it painstakingly clear why I associate you with that political alignment, and gave specific point-for-point criticisms of why I wasn't buying it.

The last thing you did, at any point of this debate, was give any specifics. You told me what I believe and why, complete with "analyses" of how I was "internalizing" right-wing authoritarianism and "mistaking biology for socializing, and socializing for identity," whatever the fuck any of that means.

...and used my postings as fodder for your prejudices against "muh leftists" (who, again, don't even really exist in this country in any large numbers).

That's the usual cop-out, as if a massive, hyper-regulatory, gyno-state hell-bent on egalitarianism at all costs isn't evident of who holds the honest-to-goodness keys to power. Trump probably won't accomplish a damn thing, because the President isn't the power center of modern society - the power centers of modern society are all in the hands of leftists - pop culture, news media, education, academia, and government bureaucracy. Maybe they're not outright Marxists per your ideal of what constitutes a leftist, but they'll happily move the Overton Window towards those very people and think they're doing society a great justice for it.

I'm not engaging you further unless you outline a hermeneutic (what you believe constitutes the objective, and what constitutes the subjective)...

That's a pretty tough thing to say. Ostensibly, I'm an empiricist, but I think academia has been sufficiently co-opted by ideologues that I'm quite certain I don't trust the output of academia even in the harder sciences nowadays - it largely exists to bolster leftist egalitarianism through having policed out anyone that doesn't agree with this axiom. The lack of intellectual diversity at the highest institutions of intellectualism calls their findings into question, as far as I'm concerned.

What's subjective is... what I experience and the meaning I derive through my life experiences. The objective should reflect itself in my subjective experiences at least somewhat, and the fact that it doesn't in many cases confirms my suspicion about the modern academic enterprise being an arm of the left.

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

That you just continue to insist that, no, really, you're charitable to all viewpoints is quite evidently not true - and you've said as much.

No. Every time you've said that I believe in complete and utter utopian tolerance with no dissent, I have countered it explicitly.

You are arguing with an invented version of me that is almost the Echo Chamber archetype of "crazy, postmodern liberal who claims to tolerate everything".

I have said THE OPPOSITE EVERY TIME I bring it up-- I have explicitly stated that I am NOT a liberal, am not tolerant of everything, have standards, align for political expedience, do NOT condone the behavior of BP and feminism, etc, etc, etc, etc....

You are not reading anything other than what will sustain your tirade against a version of me that literally mirrors the most stereotypical non-person you believe is "running the country" and "owns the institutions".

As if what you see on TV or in a lecture format (when barely anyone actually goes to college anymore) is the true face and there aren't any unseen hands.

Your worldview deliberately obscures the background forces that are much more powerful than a few talking heads that people use as weapons for decisions they've already made.

We're done here. You're not even talking to a me that can in any way be construed as who you think I am without relying on blatant paranoia.

You're traumatized and dealing with it like a child. You're the norm for what I call the Comments-Section Right and Comments-Section Left and neither of you deserve to be seen as adults or taken even remotely seriously.

You get the voting power and the generations of heaped-on privilege. Take it and go get some extra undeserved discretion from other commenters.

I'm sure only paranoid people take you seriously, and that's totally your fault unless a "Feminist" literally raped you or tried to murder you within the past year, maybe two.

Otherwise, I can't sanction it as stable behavior or excuse it as "trauma" anymore. If you're any older than like... 17, you should be politically ignored except for voting.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I have said THE OPPOSITE EVERY TIME I bring it up-- I have explicitly stated that I am NOT a liberal, am not tolerant of everything, have standards, align for political expedience, do NOT condone the behavior of BP and feminism, etc, etc, etc, etc....

I didn't say you were tolerant of everything. Clearly you aren't, and that's a good thing - but BP and feminism aren't tolerant of everything either, and the things you're intolerant of... they're intolerant of.

You are not reading anything other than what will sustain your tirade against a version of me that literally mirrors the most stereotypical non-person you believe is "running the country" and "owns the institutions".

I'm literally just arguing that I do not think that this Brave New World that you're stumping for has a place for most men. Even if many of them THINK it does, because they have thoughtlessly accepted the egalitarian axioms instilled in them through pop culture, news media, social media, and primary and secondary education and academia, I don't think people who claim to have a total, physics-esque understanding of human social organization have anything more real than snake oil.

I don't think you can possibly appreciate all of the nuances and reactions in social dynamics that are going to take place, and all I see is a future where men, who's identity and happiness is inextricably tied to female sexual validation, have no purpose.

You're right, we probably won't rebel - we'll just kill ourselves, like we're doing now, to the deaf ears of a supposedly male-centric society that "strangely" doesn't give a shit. That will, sadly, solve the problem, as it will disincentivize parents from wanting male children, and it will reduce the population of males in society, making the few males who actually make the cut somewhat valuable.

As if what you see on TV or in a lecture format (when barely anyone actually goes to college anymore) is the true face and there aren't any unseen hands.

Of course there are. And our stewards in media protect those unseen hands... if they lean left. If they lean right, taking them down is good journalism. I guarantee you that the energies of the New York Times and the Washington Post are almost all going towards unearthing something untoward about Trump. Energies that, strangely, couldn't be found to be summoned for use against Obama. I don't think Obama's a horrible president, but I do think that because he's "on the left," he got a pass that Trump nor any Republican will ever get.

It remains to be seen whether or not Trump's bullshit armor will persist into his assumption of office.

Your worldview deliberately obscures the background forces that are much more powerful than a few talking heads that people use as weapons for decisions they've already made.

They aren't really background forces, though, we just don't hear about the nuts and bolts of the backroom horse trading. We just hear "Olympia Snowe votes to advance the Affordable Care Act" and "Bernie Sanders drops out, delivers impassioned speech for supporters to back Hillary Clinton," and bullshit like that.

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think your Brave New World has a place for anyone except white dudes. The notion that minorities are voting against you because of brainwashing-- rather than just being done with your bullshit--...

... is absolutely paranoid and verging on insane.

"Cuck" is a term taken from pornography in which Black dudes steal White dudes wives. The entire neoreactionary right-wing movement is dripping in racial and gender-based resentment that people finally started calling out right-wing and centrist white dudes on their absolutely relentless failure to thrive.

I have diagnosed autism. I have what's considered by some to be "the masculine backlash" of a brain due to decades of social disintegration of society.

I am wired to "thrive" in your Brave New World, but I reject outright bc it plays into the worst of all human impulses, impulses I learned to control with only having to dedicate a few years of my life to some behavioral modification and self-searching.

I do my edgelording in my head, and control my behavior to an extreme degree so children like you don't cry "OPPRESSION!" And also so I don't feed into the hardships of people who are ACTUALLY OPPRESSED.

You're not new. You're nothing novel. It's incredibly basic. It recapitulates old norms that are antiquated for a reason.

Failing to cope with that is dire, it's serious, but it's serious in the sense that it's verging on pathology. NOT bc you're wired that way. And not bc you're losing a political battle. You're losing a culture war, bc people are tired of your bullshit. In large numbers.

Egalitarianism will make your life slightly less fun and edgy as a white dude. Work through that. Egalitarianism is hard, but it's much more rewarding than building a lifestyle around being an objectifying, sex-obsessed, "game"-playing shitposter that has to rely on crap science and widespread paranoia.

NEWSFLASH: The mainstream media and academia are Oz. They're not anywhere near the face of the bickering wizards behind the control panel. Most of whom are White men. The majority in the developed world of whom are more and more centre-right or right-of-center-right.

THE CENTRISTS ARE CLINGING FOR DEAR LIFE, fighting hard battles, and you're pissed because Rachel Maddow suggest that maybe people like you are an asshole. "LEFTISTS" barely have a say unless they're in extremely oppressed nations.

Big fucking deal.

I deal with all that, with autism, without developing an entire worldview of paranoia and "embracing my dark side" (which I do, but not to your pathological degree).

You experience a few people saying "Yo, that's fucked up to say", who then fight you on it when you fight back.

You're not going to weasel yourself into being taken seriously by me. You're a child, and I'm going to "Stump" for the idea that people like you are hurting, vindictive children.

You can't fucking adapt. That doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The notion that you "don't think my Brave New World has a place for anyone except white dudes" is something I absolutely consider to be paranoid and verging on insane. It is a leftist bogeyman that is tremendously effective, but grounded in nothing remotely resembling truth.

The notion that minorities are voting against you because of brainwashing...

Not brainwashing, perfectly rational economic incentives. Minorities aren't stupid, and to be fair, Republicans haven't really endeared themselves to minorities.

They're not anywhere near the face of the bickering wizards behind the control panel. Most of whom are White men.

They have dicks, therefore they're in the tank for the evil men. The absurdity required for one to believe in this worldview is staggering.

THE CENTRISTS ARE CLINGING FOR DEAR LIFE, fighting hard battles...

The centrists are actively demonized by the hard left, I.E. you, because they happen to think that some aspects of the right aren't totally wrong. The hard left, which you ally yourself with for political expedience, doesn't view it that way - anyone who disagrees with them on anything is literally an evil, forsaken human being. The right doesn't have shit on that level of litmus testing, even now.

You can't fucking adapt. That doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy.

You assume that there's enough of a groundswell of change that adaptation is necessary. I think it's probably far too late to do anything. The country is not, and was never going to be, overrun by crazy white racists. That's just the left's typical rallying cry, to demonize and shut down anyone and everyone who disagrees with them.

It probably is far, far too late to stop it from being overrun by socialists, though.

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

And, yes, I'm fucking shaming you into the ground.

Right relies on power and sadism. Anyone opposed to their bullshit just has to shame them, bc it's better than fucking murdering you.

I resent that people take you seriously. I resent that you're impervious to shame. I resent that you've truly got the entire functioning of the history of the world categorically backwards.

You talk about violent revolution???

Did it ever occur to you that feminists and people who are just categorically anti-rightism are committing verbal violence against your kind bc we'd rather not actually kill you?

The revolution already started, not many people are actually being this firm with you. And when they do, you develop conspiracy theories.

For fuck's sake. Most of us are just inching along, using a few shitposts of shame against you, and you act like we're fucking ripping your nails out.

You're CHOOSING TO BE HERE. You know exactly what kind of response you WANT from me. So here it is.

Go ahead and use it to build your paranoia. This is fucking stupid. Who hurt you?

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You talk about violent revolution???

As does the left. Often, lately, actually. 55% of Democrats are terrified of what the Republicans want, and 49% of Republicans are terrified of what the Democrats want. I'm one of that 49%. I have no doubts in my mind what a hyper-leftist society seeks to do to me and to people like me.

You say you align for political expedience, yet you demonize those who do the same on the other side. I'm a minarchist libertarian who broadly agrees with you on the broad aspects of egalitarianism - but that isn't enough. Give me a fucking break, you don't want dissent, you want silent, obedient, consent - and gulags for anyone who doesn't meet that standard.

Did it ever occur to you that feminists are committing verbal violence against your kind bc we'd rather not actually kill you?

I don't actually believe that for a second. I'm pretty sure the Left fantasizes about "cleansing" the country "for the greater good" as a matter of course. They frequently make hay about "eating the rich," which has historically meant "killing them," and the left's body count over one century puts the right's to shame.

[–]optimister0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

women are attracted to traditional masculinity, which is true. I'm not underestimating that. Feminists want to corral men into this narrow set of behavior where they're quiet, never criticize women, don't have preferences, and are okay with women actively undermining their genetic legacy - but sexually reward men who do none of these things, even if they parrot leftist talking points. ...there are plenty of leftists who are traditionally masculine. They'd insist that they're not, but they're competitive, strong, muscular, assert dominance, pursue female validation, etc. That they happen to regurgitate New York Times platitudes about gay and trans people is immaterial - behavior is what gets carried forth genetically.

This is where the left (which as you point out, is not equivalent to feminism) has the moral and cultural advantage over the right. In spite of the inherent weakness built into identity politics--specifically, the difficulty it has establishing any kind of cohesive, coherent ethos--the politics of the left is the only legitimately hopeful platform for everyone, including those who have swallowed TRP. After all, traditional heterosexuality is an identity, and, on paper at least, is considered morally and culturally equal to all other identities under Liberalism (properly understood). Whether or not that is the case might be a question for debate, but assuming for a moment that it was true, and that liberal politics did in fact grant to traditional heterosexuality the same weight it gave to alternative sexualities, would you reconsider your position against it? Or like an extreme feminist, are you only open to accepting sexual preferences that strictly align with your own?

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I am generally not opposed to the egalitarian tenets of the left. I just am skeptical that they've precomputed social dynamics and have it all figured out, and that traditional masculinity has a place in their brave new world. I really think that men face an existential crisis, and I don't see the modern left really acknowledging that.

A lot of the big name Blue Pill folks here - /u/biggerdthanyou, /u/probablybelievesit, /u/sipssparklingwater, etc make a lot of fair points about significant social changes that are almost certainly going to impact men negatively (automation, sperm-less pregnancy, etc), and they don't seem to have much to say other than, "Ha ha, suck it," which does not strike me as terribly egalitarian.

What's the future supposed to be for male purpose, if state assumes the role of husband, as modern feminism is actively seeking? Are the vast majority of us just supposed to be dependent on government until we die? I don't see an answer here, I just hear "get with the program, you dinosaur."

It's because of this that I'm not shocked that men are killing themselves, and I'm pretty sure that that problem - which is largely ignored - will get worse before it gets better.

[–]optimister0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Assuming that they would fight to secure you the same political rights (e.g,. life, liberty, etc.) as for those of the sexually alternative, would you approve of such a Liberalism?

Assuming that, yes. But I don't assume that, and have no reason to assume that. I think liberalism believes it is fighting for that, but it gives a pass to special programs for specific identities - women, minorities, etc. In a democratic society, I don't see these special privileges... ever... going away.

Feminism is a case in point - all of the primary objectives of feminism have been achieved. Women can own property, women can vote, women can work, women can get an education. By all rights, they possess the same rights as men, they are equals in every sense of the word... yet feminism persists. Why?

Well, why not? Women vote more than men, and can thus wrangle special privileges from the government. They're self-interested humans like anyone else, so why wouldn't they? And I just don't see this changing, unless a male identity awakening took place - and things will have to get pretty bad for men for this to happen, if it ever does.

Long story short, liberal ideals aren't what I necessarily have a problem with. It's the nuts and bolts of actualizing them that I do. I don't think any group of humans is honestly egalitarian, they're just couching their own pursuit of privilege in that rhetoric.

[–]optimister0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]optimister0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I can't separate the reality from the ideal.

Not able or not willing?

It's just a simple thought experiment, and it's one that we all do constantly, tacitly or overtly, every time we take any course of action, from taking a step to building a bridge, and it's about the easiest thing to do that there is to do. I was just asking you to imagine that ideal fully realized.

I don't think profit and business are evil, and as we have insufficient resources to distribute to everyone (and as incentives play a role in how many resources are available), the Left loses me with it's anti-business, pro-redistribution rhetoric. I don't think it is incumbent upon society to free people from the consequences of their decisions.

It seems quite clear that you do not embrace the goal of egalitarianism at all, and that your yours are far more consistent with those of Ayn Rand.

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I was just asking you to imagine that ideal fully realized.

I guess it depends. An ideal wherein people are treated equally regardless of skin color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, etc. certainly sounds good, but... seriously? Why should the hiring manager for a moving company treat an 85 year old man the same as a 23 year old man? Why are your ideals absolutely morally right, and judgements made by others that fall astray of your moral framework evil? The reality is, "equality" is not so straightforward as the militant equalists insist it is.

It seems quite clear that you do not embrace the goal of egalitarianism at all, and that your yours are far more consistent with those of Ayn Rand.

You asked me where, specifically, I break with leftist tenets, and I answered. You're the one who's insisting that one cannot support meritocracy, voluntary transaction, and capitalism while holding egalitarian views, and I simply do not accept that. I don't think it's remotely egalitarian to suggest that some groups are entitled to the productive output of other groups - you're basically arguing that there should be a permanent class of producers who toil for a permanent class of consumers. In what way is that equal?

I'm arguing that, if you are able, society is right to expect you to add to the pie. It's hard enough for the producers of society to carry the burdens of those who are legitimately unable to produce for themselves (the sick, the disabled, the elderly, the very young, etc) - people who are able but just don't want to do the shit work of society and move up the ladder get no sympathy from me, and I'm not some rich asshole. I make ends meet, and I'm usually spotting my roommates for late rent or late utilities payments.

The difference is, I know my roommates, I can hold them accountable - you just want to take a chunk of my paycheck to dole out to people I'll never meet, and whom "holding accountable" (by, say, expecting them to look for jobs or attend vocational retraining) is anathema to the Left. Yes, I'm far less worried about the racist boogeymen of the Left than I am worried about the socialist boogeymen of the Right - there are no racists in any meaningful positions of power, but there are more Marxists than there are Republicans working in academia.

Conservatives ought to take a leaf from their book, keep their views under wraps, and subvert from within.

[–]optimister1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why should the hiring manager for a moving company treat an 85 year old man the same as a 23 year old man? ... The reality is, "equality" is not so straightforward as the militant equalists insist it is.

What a ridiculous strawman. Who would ever argue that egalitarianism requires a moving company to hire someone who is incapable of doing the job? Egalitarianism means not discriminating against people who are capable, not discriminating against people who are incapable.

I'm arguing that, if you are able, society is right to expect you to add to the pie. It's hard enough for the producers of society to carry the burdens of those who are legitimately unable to produce for themselves (the sick, the disabled, the elderly, the very young, etc) - people who are able but just don't want to do the shit work of society and move up the ladder get no sympathy from me, and I'm not some rich asshole. I make ends meet, and I'm usually spotting my roommates for late rent or late utilities payments.

Nepotism and kleptocracy is not exclusive to socialism. Those are just as much if not more serious issues under capitalism in practice. More importantly, the shit jobs of the world are quickly disappearing. Under automation most people will be freeloaders living off of the backs of those who own the robots. As that time approaches, socialism becomes increasingly relevant.

Yes, I'm far less worried about the racist boogeymen of the Left than I am worried about the socialist boogeymen of the Right - there are no racists in any meaningful positions of power, but there are more Marxists than there are Republicans working in academia.

They are there for a very good reason, and if you want to know what it would be like to be afraid of the racist boogeymen, just get rid of them and you will see.

Conservatives ought to take a leaf from their book, keep their views under wraps, and subvert from within.

Conservatives have been doing this for a while and it has only further eroded their intellectual credibility. It's allowed them to convince themselves better, and breed their own cults and extremists, and render themselves incapable of conversing with non-conservatives. But that's all.

[–]FallacyExplnationBot1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hi! Here's a summary of what a "Strawman" is:

^A ^straw ^man ^is ^logical ^fallacy ^that ^occurs ^when ^a ^debater ^intentionally ^misrepresents ^their ^opponent's ^argument ^as ^a ^weaker ^version ^and ^rebuts ^that ^weak ^& ^fake ^version ^rather ^than ^their ^opponent's ^genuine ^argument. ^Intentional ^strawmanning ^usually ^has ^the ^goal ^of ^[1] ^avoiding ^real ^debate ^against ^their ^opponent's ^real ^argument, ^because ^the ^misrepresenter ^risks ^losing ^in ^a ^fair ^debate, ^or ^[2] ^making ^the ^opponent's ^position ^appear ^ridiculous ^and ^thus ^win ^over ^bystanders.

^Unintentional ^misrepresentations ^are ^also ^possible, ^but ^in ^this ^case, ^the ^misrepresenter ^would ^only ^be ^guilty ^of ^simple ^ignorance. ^While ^their ^argument ^would ^still ^be ^fallacious, ^they ^can ^be ^at ^least ^excused ^of ^malice.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Egalitarianism means not discriminating against people who are capable, not discriminating against people who are incapable.

Capability is subjective, and like it or not, freedom of association is a thing.

Nepotism and kleptocracy is not exclusive to socialism. Those are just as much if not more serious issues under capitalism in practice.

Laughably false. Capitalist countries have the most transparent, functioning democracies, socialist (sorry - Not Real Socialist™) countries routinely flout rule of law to satisfy the moral absolutism of Glorious Leader.

More importantly, the shit jobs of the world are quickly disappearing. Under automation most people will be freeloaders living off of the backs of those who own the robots. As that time approaches, socialism becomes increasingly relevant.

Oh hey, a socialist predicting where the winds of the economy will go - they have such a good record of being right about that. /s

After all - machines, taking labor? No one's ever thought of that before, it's not like we're here after an explosion of human population worldwide that coincided with the deployment of increasingly advanced technology that replaced human labor or anything. Surely there's unprecedented, widespread unemployment!

Oh wait, no, there isn't. In fact, you and I are communicating on machines that put millions of people out of work - but, like a true socialist, you ignore that the money saved from that paradigm shift allowed it to be reinvested elsewhere in the economy generating still more jobs.

Yes, I'm far less worried about the racist boogeymen of the Left than I am worried about the socialist boogeymen of the Right - there are no racists in any meaningful positions of power, but there are more Marxists than there are Republicans working in academia.

They are there for a very good reason...

"Good reason" to a socialist meaning, of course, the deliberate excommunication of people with alternate points of view from being able to perform research and articulate ideas that would vindicate their perspectives. There's a long and proud history among socialists of excommunicating dissent and suppressing free speech - so it doesn't surprise me that you consider this "good reason."

I don't have to, however - and I do not.

Conservatives ought to take a leaf from their book, keep their views under wraps, and subvert from within.

Conservatives have been doing this for a while...

They certainly haven't, and to their great shame. They trusted the Left, and probably sold out the greatest society on Earth to the most manipulative, duplicitous ideology to present itself in human history. There's probably no saving it at this point, but they delayed it for four years - and the howling from the Left that anyone in this society would dare oppose their relentless march towards state centralism and ideological enforcement reveals the true nature of their supposed "empathy."

Empathy for those who agree with you, maybe, but cold contempt for anyone whose mouth isn't slobbering over the dick of the leftist zeitgeist. I take solace in knowing that leftism is at odds with itself, and cannot last within itself - I just wish my offspring wouldn't have to be subject to your shit sandwich of an experiment where millions of people are your little variables towards creating that perfect society in your head.

[–]optimister1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Capitalist countries have the most transparent, functioning democracies,

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! You must be referring to the transparent lubrications rigorously applied to the gears of democracies everywhere by large pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers, chemical and petroleum consortiums, sports and entertainment organizations, etc., etc., etc.,... Sorry, it's not possible to take you seriously after that.

Empathy for those who agree with you, maybe, but cold contempt for anyone whose mouth isn't slobbering over the dick of the leftist zeitgeist.

Have you every tried sucking on Marx's massive shlong? It's pretty freaking awesome! You might as well give it a taste--as you have already conceded, it's going to make it's way down your throat one way or another.

[–]the_calibre_cat1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! You must be referring to the transparent lubrications rigorously applied to the gears of democracies everywhere by large pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers, chemical and petroleum consortiums, sports and entertainment organizations, etc., etc., etc.,... Sorry, it's not possible to take you seriously after that.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, complain. If you think what's happening now is bad, realize socialism.

Have you every tried sucking on Marx's massive shlong? It's pretty freaking awesome!

No, it's been wrong every time, and the people addicted to it are less unable and more unwilling to accept that.

You might as well give it a taste--as you have already conceded, it's going to make it's way down your throat one way or another.

I'm a team player. It's not gonna be me who brings down socialism. It's gonna be all the lazy assholes who want to live off of the labor of people like me, who you want to enable because gosh they're just such good people if only we gave them free shit they'll change. I won't bother starting a business or working particularly hard for socialism, but I'll probably do what I'm told to avoid getting a bullet in my head by your warm and fuzzy labor commandants.

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProbablyBelievesIt0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

as a right-libertarian, I damn sure can't hope for my people to have a shot at power ever.

Because libertarian politics require a perfect masculine logic, on the part of everyone, and they're so far removed from reality, that they confuse "Masculine" with objective.

They want to encourage competition, but they don't have any useful answers for what happens to the losers of that competition. We've all seen the horrors of that 3rd world country.

While the egalitarian left prefers no competition

Oppression Olympics and "I'm way more tolerant than you." ring a bell? It's just that the egalitarian left tries to minimize it, in favor of trying to find the good in as many people as possible. It may not be working out everywhere, but usually the failures are due to a failure of empathy + power.

That'll happen with any philosophy.

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Because libertarian politics require a perfect masculine logic, on the part of everyone, and they're so far removed from reality, that they confuse "Masculine" with objective.

No, they're actually arguably the closest to objective fact. I mean, by and large, the redistributionists are wrong. There's just no way around that. It's confirmed by economists time and time again. If we designed a society around what economists said would be the best policy, even the liberal ones like Paul Krugman (who, by the way, comprise a majority of practicing, academic economists), we'd probably have a magnificently functional society.

And people like you would lambast that society as some kind of laissez-faire, ubercapitalist utopia. THAT is how far removed we are. Markets work, and socialism doesn't.

They want to encourage competition, but they don't have any useful answers for what happens to the losers of that competition.

Because the answer is uncomfortable: They die.

You just think there's a way around that, and there isn't in a world of scarce resources. You dole more to them, and you'll need to take more from productive society. You take more from productive society, and they produce less. They produce less, and the resultant shortfall creates more losers. It's a vicious cycle, and at step two, when producers produce less as a result of the reduced reward for their efforts, the bureaucrats get frustrated, throw their paperwork into the air, and assign a moral value judgment ("Greedy capitalists!") that justifies doing "something" ("gulag") to these horrible, inhumane, greedy monsters.

This has happened every time. You live in a world with fewer resources than there are human desires of what to do with them. You just think there's a magical threshold where redistribution and production can coexist perfectly, to where no one person gets left behind (ignoring what perfect economic security might do to, I dunno, birthrates and supply and demand of resources) - and I think that that's a pipe dream. You confuse (or deliberately misrepresent) my position as hatred. I don't know what to fucking tell you, other than what I have been, which is that your mania for micromanagement and control of society is more often than not worse than the outcomes you seek to prevent.

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

u/the_calibre_cat

PART 3

Long story short, I don't think men can be freed from these expectations, because social expectations will always be there and people don't exist in a vacuum.

Only because you don't want to free yourself, bc it justifies your overarching right-wing worldview.

At least stop pretending this has anything to do with gender. It has to do with getting more sex, and winning more power, and turning away from positive liberties for people who aren't hyper-masculine to the point of toxicity and violent tendencies (which are cyclically justified by "they deserve it bc they want positive liberties").

All bc you're too weak to offset your own biological impulses.

You're assuming way more people are going to put up with the failing toxicity of Neoreaction, even the degree of bias you have against these imaginary "leftists" you have been displaying throughout the latest comments.

Most of the people you're calling leftists are centrists-- we have very few actual leftists in America. I would know-- I'm one of them, and all I got was this crappy "I'm With Her" t-shirt this year.

Give men in society zero purpose, and zero social standing,

That. Is. Fucking. Delusional.

Being gate-kept by women (to some degree, not even entirely) in one-on-one relationships does not overpower generations of politically entrenched money and power, and international political alliances that are extremely gendered.

You've developed a victim mentality that doesn't even accurately gauge how many political adversaries you have.

If any men started getting violent against feminism, they'd be stomped into the ground by most people-- bc people can look at basic statistics and see men over-represented for years.

You'd get labeled terrorists and shoved to the funny pages. People pay much more attention to facts when people start dying.

If anything, you'd shoot your masculinist allies in the foot, bc enough people would be able to find out that the grievances that led to murder and violence were not rooted in reality.

No amount of theory on either side will eclipse basic number head-counts of "How many males are in power as opposed to females, and how many policies enacted by male majorities are still public policy now?"

You're expressing extremist rhetoric based on NON-FACTS and that will get stomped out by anyone with an internet connection.

Unless you already live in an authoritarian regime. Congrats-- you don't.

and see what they have left to resort to.

Their money and political alliances. Their positions of power in corporations, lobbying, gerrymandering, smear campaigns, troll campaigns, etc, etc....

It's impossible-- absolutely impossible-- for men to have less political options than women right now. We live in a capitalist society and men have more money AND access to political maneuvers.

If more traditionalist masculinists wanted more representation, they'd just have to continue doing the jerk-off, unethical garbage neoreactionary, narcissistic, mind-numbing shit they did all year with figures like Trump.

The fact that you don't realize how privileged both of us are to even be typing these words, that you'd already be thinking of violent endings, shows me how politically unsophisticated and ignorant you are of your own options.

Most people would shame that terrorist faction into the ground, and it would be a death knell for any neoreactionary movement for decades.

Because it's immature and debased from reality.

you have many other options-- so do women

I think you'll find "just love and tolerate everybody and everything" is probably not a sufficiently cohesive nor valuable enough ideology to compel them to fall in line.

I think you'll find I never said that and you're just traumatized by imaginary "leftists" like you've been this entire comment.

Thoughts bubbling under about violent revolution bc women are having less sex with some types of dudes but will still get into relationships with them if they really want kids.

That deserves shame. No amount of ideology justifies your call to violence. NONE.

I'd call your ass out if you were a "leftist", too, but you don't appear to have any idea how large or small the leftists are in your own neck of the woods.

You have to give them something that is bigger than themselves to believe in, and all you offer them is contempt for their biology,

"You".

You're triggered. De-escalate.

wrapped in the pretext of concern for them. Most men don't want your fucking concern for "being locked in masculine gender norms,"

Actually, a lot of men are rejecting that lockstep. Especially millennials.

You can't have it both ways: "Leftists are large and in charge and too many men aren't locked in anymore and it's leading to hedonism!"

And somehow also "But it's not a big enough issue for it to affect 'most men'.

Makes zero sense. Once Baby Boom dies, more men in America will be what you would probably consider Blue-tinged Purple-Pill than there are Red-tinged Purple-Pill.

You're incorrect about current demographics.

And it sounds to me like you just WANT to fight, to the point where you'd create imaginary-sized enemies.

You sound like you WANT violence, too.

They want you to leave them the fuck alone, so that they can provide and be a decent father to their kids. That's purpose, and it doesn't surprise me to see anti-work leftists baffled as to how people could possibly want that.

Again, you're overestimating the homogeneity of men's ideology in the developing world, and the rest of it is just scapegoating "leftists" that don't exist in any number that's in-step with reality.

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

u/the_calibre_cat

PART 4

Freedom, in the male/libertarian vernacular is not "freedom" in the female/leftist vernacular.

More males that are traditionally masculine in our society are in lock-step with majoritarianism. The smaller minority of right-libertarians are actually closer to Blue in terms of more widespread rejection of essentialism.

&nbsp

About a little over half of women in my country-- a gigantic country-- are more likely to be right democratists/republicans (conservatives, fusionists, distributists, thatcherists) or right-libertarians-- than they are to be centre OR left.

Your enemy is imaginary, and it sounds like it has less to do with making sure you're in-tune with actual numbers and actual voting blocs/coalitions-- and more to do with enjoying being salty and simply wanting to feel like you have justification for whatever gender-based trauma you've internalized.

That's fine-- work that out, but don't use it to literally sit there are lie to me about what basic voting numbers can tell me are blatantly false.

It is freedom from, not freedom to. Freedom from costs every single person in society nothing to provide. Freedom to creates a class of workers upon whom the rest of society leeches from. Violent response to this isn't terrorism, it's liberation.

When it imagines that "leftism" is tied to GENDER, when leftism barely fucking EXISTS in most developed nation's power-structures (CENTRISM =/= LEFTISM), and that re-establishing some barely-scientific trash science about AWALT and AMALT debunked philosophy is JUSTIFICATION TO MURDER RANDOM CITIZENS, it will be coded as terrorism immediately.

TERRORISM is what it will be labeled my most people-- or you'll be called INSANE if you're a white dude. One person's patriot is another person's terrorist, and you see how far you get with your theories and Reddit-logic when people from all over the country and intelligence agencies are trying to find out why you killed your own citizens over POLITICS.

Typical Blue Pill justification for their shaming.

Good thing I'm not Blue Pill. You just want an excuse to literally murder Berpers.

No, it's mostly from my own anecdotal experiences.

Fine. Then go kill your own citizens based on anecdotes.

Yes, I absolutely believe that the overwhelming majority of people are like this.

Good. Then go kill people bc you're so certain. I'll watch as your movement crumbles under the weight of your psychopathy.

But gender "egalitarianism" in the way that it's actually happening is absolutely leading to that. See: The abundance of "women's programs" in, um, everything. I bet you dollars to doughnuts those programs last until the collapse of this government, regardless of the outcomes of women in society. They could be (and in many cases, today, are) doing better than men, and programs and benefits specific to women will not only continue to exist, but will be fiercely defended by women and men.

It sounds to me like you just want to murder anyone who isn't right-of-centre-right. And, until then, you'll distort your viewpoints on humanity to symbolically and verbally leak your rage out until that murder is viewed as patriotism.

I've even made concessions towards your point of view, but that isn't enough - which is pretty typical of leftists.

You make concessions to immediately twist whatever I say toward "You", "Feminist", "Leftist", "Most [men, women, leftists, people in my country]",

You Barely hide murderous disdain for people who don't even exist, and don't exist in the numbers you claim,

And your justification is ANECDOTES.

[–]Ryuutorak0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

PART 5

No, I think capitalism ... demonstrated their value, rather than to people because they exist, possess to ability to consume things, and vote.

Your values. You want them to not only demonstrate values to stand a chance and have basic needs, but to demonstrate your values, and any value changes that occur in society conveniently are worthy of contempt deserving of murder because "BIOLOGY".

That is authoritarian rhetoric. You're claiming libertarianism here, but as soon as you gender it in the manner you've done, you've made it authoritarian.

Authortarianism can be argued civilly, but you sitting there and trying to convince me that you're libertarian is where I draw the line.

They're designed to. But they don't, and they do actively cause some maladies.

So does laissez-faire capitalism.

I don't think taxes are inherently bad - while I'd love a world without them, and without the states that accompany them,

Yes, you'd just rather have authoritarian-based gender roles and mentally-/emotionally-lazy people, as long as they're willing to match an extremely narrow version of (specific-/limited) masculine competence.

Or they're Marxists and deserve to die.

Being anti-"Statism" means NOTHING if you're not libertarian. Nothing you're advocating would translate politically into libertarianism or even middle-of-the-road democratism.

It's too limited. You're not expressing a free market-- you're expressing a weaponized market designed to make everyone more masculine or die trying.

Because you're too lazy to de-escalate from psychopathic politics.

That's authoritarian. I dislike authoritarianism, but I am disgusted by authoritarians that try and pass themselves off as libertarians in public.

You're a liar, and anyone reading this will see that.

the reality is that social groups must produce respect for their existence by successfully violently opposing those who would do them harm.

Only if they're mentally and emotionally weak. You're not describing a "just war" here. You're describing terrorism against your own citizens.

Groups that cannot do this, do not succeed. Might makes right is, while unquestionably immoral, real.

It's a choice. And it's lazy.

It does not surprise me that you rob people who disagree with you of their agency. That's, like, leftism 101.

If your agency is "robbed" by me expressing doubt that you have any influence from politicians (most people do-- you've just demonstrated enough psychological laziness and convenient beliefs to make be doubt you have overturned your influence)....

.... Then you're failing to take responsibility for how biased and repetitive your rhetoric sounds.

I'll admit it's hard to not do that, but to make this "Muh agency" claim (which is nothing but a co-optation from pathetic Berpers) speaks volumes about how desperate you are to prove a point.

You don't care about people. You just want excuses to commit intellectual and emotional laziness and justify the killing of people who stand in your way.

That is toxic.

And create a strawman against leftists that don't exist. Most of "muh liberals" are Centrists.

You're not purple, dude. You're just a Red-Piller who makes random concessions to BP (conveniently) because you're embarrassed by how much much of a joke Red Pill has become on Reddit.

All of this is to feed your hatred for anyone who isn't laissez-faire capitalst. All while lying to yourself about being a libertarian.

Laissez-faire free market capitalism (economic liberty) + authoritarianism (violent opposition to any regulation of the market's liberty OR concessions to give positive liberties to people who suffer under that market) = right-wing authoritarianism.

Why are you lying to nearly 10,000 potential readers?

I have plenty of respect for people who are fascists ideologically. I have no respect for RWAs who pretend to be libertarian to make their views more palatable.

Own your own fucking viewpoints, dude.

[–]dottywineA Normal Person0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Is masculinity fragile?
Author	Electra_Cute
Upvotes	14
Comments	626
Date	December 26, 2016 3:14 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5ke415/is_masculinity_fragile/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/is-masculinity-fragile.271030 https://theredarchive.com/post/271030