Bad News, Everyone

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

You know, this Red Pill, MWGTOW or Incel thing proves parts of Sarkisian's thesis wrong. She kept stating that the power fantasies for males didn't have a negative effect for men. I say babkas. Media keeps telling men to act a certain way and they get certain rewards. That's not based in reality and a replacement ideology needs to be found. You just cant live without believing things.

CM156:

trunkage:
He also thinks semen is mystically addictive and stops women from cheating.

Semen needs to be regulated as a controlled substance.

This just makes me think of milking machines and the need to modify them for men.

Agema:
Incels are a specific subgroup of men not having sex identifiable by their anger, frustration and misogyny, who blame women for not sleeping with them.

Yes, it is important to distinguish them from Volcels (Voluntary celibates), or men who choose to abstain from sex for a variety of reasons. Some of these may be MGTOW.
Quite frankly I think it's crazy that all these terms exist in the first place.

I dont know if you noticed, people like being part of a group. And the only way to make a group is to start ostracising others. You can label which group you morally approve of to get virtue signalling points.

trunkage:
This just makes me think of milking machines and the need to modify them for men.

There are artists who have produced images of what such a machine might look like. Just don't search for them when you're at work.

I dont know if you noticed, people like being part of a group.

Yep, even when that group is destructive to itself and the welfare of its members.

McElroy:
I think it makes more sense that they see incel ideology as an alternative. I haven't stumbled upon incels (or people who at least seem to use similar rhetoric) who say that the "Chads" treat women as badly as incels want them treated.

There's a saying that a cynic is a romantic who's had their rose tinted-specatacles broken.

Someone may be a "nice guy", but this doesn't mean they really understand or relate well to other people. Niceness doesn't necessarily meet all another person's emotional needs, particularly if they lack the intuition to realise what another person's emotional needs are. People like that might be "nice" - well intentioned, kind, generous, etc. - but they aren't going to supply a fulfilling relationship.

And yeah, they might fail themselves to some heavy-degree bitterness and anger.

trunkage:
You know, this Red Pill, MWGTOW or Incel thing proves parts of Sarkisian's thesis wrong. She kept stating that the power fantasies for males didn't have a negative effect for men.

No surprises there: she's hardy an intellectual heavyweight.

evilthecat:
This isn't really an 'incel' thing, it's a 'red pill' thing. Most of the speakers are married with children, which is played up strongly in the marketing because they're trying to present this as a "pro-family" conference rather than an anti-feminist conference. The image they clearly want to convey is that these nice, family oriented "traditional" men are going to come and tell you how to be their version of the ideal women so you can attract nice traditional men and live in monogamous family bliss like them.

Of course, they kind of dropped the ball on that lie with the speakers.

Mike Cernovich, for example, was charged with raping a woman in college, and ultimately convicted of battery. He openly cheated on his first wife and she ultimately divorced him. He received over a million dollars in the divorce settlement, which is likely still his main source of funding. He's not a wholesome, family values kind of men's rights activist, he's a predator in every sense of the word.

Stephan Molyneux believes that every single problem in society can be traced back to children's relationships with their mothers, and genetically predetermined traits created by women's decisions to reproduce with "assholes". He has stated the belief that there are no good parents, (meaning, specifically, no good mothers, as he seems to view fathers as having no particular role in childrearing). He often encourages young people to sever ties with families without clear evidence of abuse, and has clearly pushed his wife to do the same (which has lead to investigations into her professional conduct). Stephan is also largely supported by his wife's therapy practice.

It does not take much research to dispel the myth that these are wholesome conservative patriarchs who love the traditional family. The only aspect of the traditional family they seem to like is male-dominance.

You know the thing I find baffling as shit about that part about Cernovitch's implied views on men not handling any aspect of child rearing is that men's groups who are doing work for men worth a squirt of piss have been trying to get it known just how much fathers do want to be involved in raising their children. Like, way to spit in the faces of your fellows there Stephen, on top of just being pathetic.

Gordon_4:

You know the thing I find baffling as shit about that part about Cernovitch?s implied views on men not handling any aspect of child rearing is that men?s groups who are doing work for men worth a squirt of piss have been trying to get it known just how much fathers do want to be involved in raising their children. Like, way to spit in the faces of your fellows there Stephen, on top of just being pathetic.

Different branches of the MRM, really. At one end, some MRAs are rethinking masculinity and society in ways that for the accept the last few decades of change, then through a spectrum to those who want to revert societal roles to the 1950s or so.

People like Cernovich and Molyneux are shitty human beings on many levels. I don't doubt that they do believe much of the unpleasant stuff they come out with, but I also think a certain amount of it is self-aggrandising performance as they see angry, anti-feminist men as a bunch of people they can exploit for influence and money. Molyneux apparently used to be an Objectivist, so it's not hard to see where he got his inspiration from...

I am fascinated to know what the spouses of people like that think. I'm aware that Molyneux's wife had something to do with forming his bizarre ideas and cult, but she also seems to have consequently expressed regret and distanced herself (potentially for facing professional sanction over it). But they see their spouse come out with that sort of shit... do they believe it? Do they not care and overlook it because in ways that matter to them the relationship works? Are they controlled and manipulated in what amounts to an abusive relationship?

trunkage:
You know, this Red Pill, MWGTOW or Incel thing proves parts of Sarkisian's thesis wrong. She kept stating that the power fantasies for males didn't have a negative effect for men.

She reminds me a lot of undergraduates I have met/taught/been.

Undergraduates are often very easily overwhelmed by the superficial coherence and intellectual mystique of academic work. When introduced to a theoretical perspective which resonates with their personal perspective and seems to provide answers to problems they have in their own understanding of the world, they often become very attached to that perspective and won't seek out or accept criticisms of it even if those criticisms result in more coherent or complete theory.

Anita's perspective is very rooted in 1980s radical feminist media criticism, and I don't think she was ever pushed extensively to critique that perspective. A lot has happened in theory since the 1980s, and there are a lot of video essayists and pop culture figures who represent these perspectives much better than Anita does. Her main claim to fame is how much people shat themselves hollow over her making a small youtube series.

Heck, the co-writer of Tropes vs. Women, Jonathan McIntosh, has his own channel which has its own problems but often comes out with much more nuanced and interesting takes on the effects of media and its depictions and fantasies about masculinity, many of which could easily be applied to the whole red/black pill phenomenon and adjacent movements.

How often do we see movies in which a lovable loser pursues an attractive girl or woman (even to the point of stalking) who is already in a relationship with an irredeemable asshole character, and despite being entirely mediocre, our protagonist's creepy persistence and basic ability to not act like a cartoonish asshole ultimately gets him the girl. If that is the fantasy men are being sold, how are they going to feel when it doesn't work out that way?

Gordon_4:
You know the thing I find baffling as shit about that part about Cernovitch?s implied views on men not handling any aspect of child rearing is that men?s groups who are doing work for men worth a squirt of piss have been trying to get it known just how much fathers do want to be involved in raising their children. Like, way to spit in the faces of your fellows there Stephen, on top of just being pathetic.

Even in the 80s and 90s, ridiculously hardcore Christian-conservative men's movements like the Promise Keepers, who actually were what these conference organisers were pretending to be, were already emphasising the need for men to engage with family life, take a proactive role in childrearing and be more emotionally open and supportive in their relationships with their wives, because they realised that was the only way the traditional patriarchal family which they valued so much was going to survive. These losers can't even get that far.

evilthecat:

Julian Blanc, for example, isn't going around grabbing women by the throat because it actually gets him laid. He does it because men enjoy the fantasy of being able to physically assault women and then magically breaking their brains so they want to fuck. It turns out, a lot of men are shitty people who enjoy the fantasy of hurting and dominating women more than they enjoy the fantasy of having mutually enjoyable sex with them.

Of all PUA tactics, the one I find most interesting to discuss is one specific one of Mystery's. The one where if you want to go farther and she doesn't, you back down. Not just to what you were already doing, but farther. And don't try to put any moves on her, essentially so that to get back to what she was presumably enjoying doing she has to take the initiative. The idea being that if she's pursuing you rather than vice versa she will tend to go farther.

Why that one? Because arguments against it end up getting interesting and tricky around consent and withdrawal of consent, often with arguments that definitely wouldn't fly with a gender swap.

evilthecat:
and because (as we've established) men are frequently shitty people,

Should I point out that you've essentially stated that men are uniquely bad people, and that would be considered sexism if someone were to state similar positions regarding women? The reality of course is that people are frequently shitty, no demographic qualifiers necessary. There's just a tendency to look for reasons to excuse shittiness in some demographics, depending on the speaker/writer.

trunkage:
This just makes me think of milking machines and the need to modify them for men.

Schadrach:
Should I point out that you've essentially stated that men are uniquely bad people, and that would be considered sexism if someone were to state similar positions regarding women? The reality of course is that people are frequently shitty, no demographic qualifiers necessary. There's just a tendency to look for reasons to excuse shittiness in some demographics, depending on the speaker/writer.

If we were going off of only people's opinions, sure. However, one need not go farther than to crime statistics to realize that one gender commits the overwhelming majority of violent crimes. There's a very fruitful discussion to be had about why men are so incredibly violent compared to women, but one can not deny that men are more violent then women and more often engage in unlawful coercive and/or aggressive behavior. That's not to excuse women or non-binary people who break the law or behave like shit, but it is clear that men engage in it far more frequently and, often, to a much higher degree.

That's not an indictment of all men, mind you, but rather a reminder that demographic qualifiers are often necessary if we want to have any sort of meaningful data. "People commit violent crimes" doesn't help anyone if we want to find ways to decrease violent crime (or explain them). "Lonely men from unstable families with impulse control issues are over represented among violent crime perpetrators" however is, because at that point we can actually see what can be done to prevent these people from becoming violent.

Gethsemani:
However, one need not go farther than to crime statistics to realize that one gender commits the overwhelming majority of violent crimes.

Trust me: you don't want to open the door to making widesweeping conclusions on populations based on crime statistics. That's how we got " 13 do 50"

Schadrach:

Of all PUA tactics, the one I find most interesting to discuss is one specific one of Mystery's. The one where if you want to go farther and she doesn't, you back down. Not just to what you were already doing, but farther. And don't try to put any moves on her, essentially so that to get back to what she was presumably enjoying doing she has to take the initiative. The idea being that if she's pursuing you rather than vice versa she will tend to go farther.

Why that one? Because arguments against it end up getting interesting and tricky around consent and withdrawal of consent, often with arguments that definitely wouldn't fly with a gender swap.

Unless there's more to it that you're saying, I'm not really sure what the problem with that is to make it worth arguing against. It doesn't appear to be coercive.

Agema:

McElroy:
I think it makes more sense that they see incel ideology as an alternative. I haven't stumbled upon incels (or people who at least seem to use similar rhetoric) who say that the "Chads" treat women as badly as incels want them treated.

Someone may be a "nice guy", but this doesn't mean they really understand or relate well to other people. Niceness doesn't necessarily meet all another person's emotional needs, particularly if they lack the intuition to realise what another person's emotional needs are. People like that might be "nice" - well intentioned, kind, generous, etc. - but they aren't going to supply a fulfilling relationship.

That's just mansplaining. You could easily continue describing a "fulfilling relationship" in terms that would make women seem shallow ("must be this tall"), materialistic (main likes are traveling and shopping, expects gifts), unfair (generalizations about normal guys being needy manchildren that are one step away from stalking them), lazy (starts gaining weight once the relationship is stable) and so on. Nevertheless, I'd like to agree with the general message of it, but if you ask why women are averse of men who are "nice" (annoying how you can't just write "nice guy" because of that term being what it is) the replies will be stereotypical.

Anyway, the relationship game -- here where the "market" is more or less free -- between sexes seems to be incredibly gendered and its integration online has exacerbated the issue (the famous 20% / 80% -rule for example). Growing up thinking that dating stereotypes have little basis in reality and later realizing the truth through experience could be just as disheartening as thinking that "the loser gets the girl in the end".

Schadrach:
Should I point out that you've essentially stated that men are uniquely bad people

frequently and uniquely are two very distinct concepts.

CM156:

Gethsemani:
However, one need not go farther than to crime statistics to realize that one gender commits the overwhelming majority of violent crimes.

Trust me: you don?t want to open the door to making widesweeping conclusions on populations based on crime statistics. That?s how we got ? 13 do 50?

At the risk of seeming ignorant, can you expand on what you mean?

Gordon_4:

CM156:

Gethsemani:
However, one need not go farther than to crime statistics to realize that one gender commits the overwhelming majority of violent crimes.

Trust me: you don?t want to open the door to making widesweeping conclusions on populations based on crime statistics. That?s how we got ? 13 do 50?

At the risk of seeming ignorant, can you expand on what you mean?

Gethsemani was using the well known fact that despite making up only (roughly) 50% of the population, men are responsible for committing most crimes, to draw conclusions about male behavior.

I was pointing out that you don't really want to go down that road because there are other readings of that very same data, involving pretty much the exact same argument, that many people find distasteful. I'm not going to expressly state the argument, even as a shitpost, because it would probably (rightfully) get me a warning.

CM156:

I'm not going to expressly state the argument, even as a shitpost, because it would probably (rightfully) get me a warning.

I think it's fair to let Wikipedia handle this one.

Gordon_4:

At the risk of seeming ignorant, can you expand on what you mean?

CM156 is saying that just looking at simple crime statistics accounts for neither different societal circumstances experienced by different demographics, nor bias in the criminal justice system. And racists looking at that sort of data will tell you that black Americans are more criminal than everyone else because they're convicted of more crimes. And no honest and informed person should ever make that argument

McElroy:
That's just mansplaining. You could easily continue describing a "fulfilling relationship" in terms that would make women seem shallow ("must be this tall"), materialistic (main likes are traveling and shopping, expects gifts), unfair (generalizations about normal guys being needy manchildren that are one step away from stalking them), lazy (starts gaining weight once the relationship is stable) and so on.

I was never assuming that an "emotional need" was necessarily a positive thing in the first place. Yes, some could be described as shallow, or materialistic, character flaws, etc. If someone is a gaping black hole of insecurity, that's not a good thing, but they still need a partner to recognise and try to deal with it.

...but if you ask why women are averse of men who are "nice" (annoying how you can't just write "nice guy" because of that term being what it is) the replies will be stereotypical.

I don't think women are generally averse to nice guys - depending on what we mean by "nice", probably the opposite is true on average. The only problem is lacking the social skills to connect well with others. Arguably, a selfish person who recognises what will make their partner happy and does it sometimes is a better option than a nice person who wants to always make their partner happy but keeps failing because they can't recognise what will.

Anyway, the relationship game -- here where the "market" is more or less free -- between sexes seems to be incredibly gendered and its integration online has exacerbated the issue (the famous 20% / 80% -rule for example). Growing up thinking that dating stereotypes have little basis in reality and later realizing the truth through experience could be just as disheartening as thinking that "the loser gets the girl in the end".

I'm not sure this dating "80/20" rule has any particular meaning outside dating apps, as face to face interaction is rarely about checking CVs before you give someone the time of day. We meet prospective partners best in real life: workplaces, in social events, friends of friends, places of worship, wherever we go. We meet them, get a sense of them and bond in face to face interactions, and if things develop further, hook up.

Even with dating apps, let's not forget that enough of the "80% men" still usually get laid, and end up with long-term relationships. Perhaps that's the "80% women" either occasionally drop their standards, or eventually grow up and learn to stop deluding themselves that Prince Charming is just around the corner waiting for her. Or they just meet each other offline, of course.

Schadrach:
Should I point out that you've essentially stated that men are uniquely bad people, and that would be considered sexism if someone were to state similar positions regarding women?

Sexism requires an unjustified or unreasonable belief or prejudice.

We live in a gendered and sexist society, where the sex to which you are perceived to belong will have huge consequences for how you are raised, perceived and treated at every stage of life. Understandably, there are knock on psychological and cultural impacts to living in that kind of society which shape the behaviour of individuals. To insist on treating those people purely as individuals when they are clearly not and do not wish to be is not unreasonable.

PUAs, red pills and incels are internally sexist communities. They believe that the awful attitudes and behaviours they exhibit are representative of prevailing truths about relations between men and women which are true across all of society, and in a sense they are correct. These men were not raised in a unique or special environment, they were exposed to the same society and the same social norms as everyone else, and the elements which resulted in them being the broken, emotionally warped individuals they are are present in the life of every man.

"Men are bad" may be a needlessly provocative way of saying "masculinity is bad", but it is also not untrue. I believe the provocation is justified because, typically, I find that men do not respond to criticism of the social abstracts (like masculinity) because, as the dominant group in society, they get to retreat into the fantasy of being purely individuals. They will freely concede, of course, that other men are bad people. They will happily warn women of the danger posed by other men, they will blame those women when they fall victim to other men on the grounds that they should have anticipated or expected that men are bad. The only thing men seem to find offensive about the statement that men are bad people is the idea that they in particular might be bad people.

Gethsemani:

If we were going off of only people's opinions, sure. However, one need not go farther than to crime statistics to realize that one gender commits the overwhelming majority of violent crimes. There's a very fruitful discussion to be had about why men are so incredibly violent compared to women, but one can not deny that men are more violent then women and more often engage in unlawful coercive and/or aggressive behavior.

I could apply exactly the same reasoning to race, except the same people that are nodding along with you there would consider me a monstrous bigot for doing so (hell, it might even be bannable). FBI UCR Table 43a[1] shows that black persons are perpetrators in 53.3 percent of homicides, 54.2 percent of robberies, and are significantly overrepresented in all other listed crimes except for those related to alcohol (drunkenness, DUI, liquor laws). For most of those crimes, blacks are overrepresented to a larger degree than men, since for most of those crimes a similar degree of overrepresentation would require men to commit more than 100% of the crimes.

Gethsemani:

That's not to excuse women or non-binary people who break the law or behave like shit, but it is clear that men engage in it far more frequently and, often, to a much higher degree.

And you believe that "men are dangerous and violent" as a stereotype being supported by this doesn't play a part in the gender sentencing gap? Women who break the law literally get excused, whether it's a larger sentencing gap than for race in the US, or something like the UK where it's policy not to imprison women except in the most extreme cases.

Gethsemani:

That's not an indictment of all men, mind you, but rather a reminder that demographic qualifiers are often necessary if we want to have any sort of meaningful data. "People commit violent crimes" doesn't help anyone if we want to find ways to decrease violent crime (or explain them). "Lonely men from unstable families with impulse control issues are over represented among violent crime perpetrators" however is, because at that point we can actually see what can be done to prevent these people from becoming violent.

Or low income, fatherless, young black men - which is the prime demo for gang recruitment? Given that a large portion of that homicide, and of gun crime in the US in general is gang related? Except you can't fix "young" except with time and anybody who's starting from "men are violent" is unlikely to think that doing something about "fatherless" is important or possibly even a good idea.

At this point someone is likely to interject that spree shooters are predominately middle class white males, but spree shooters are a tiny, tiny minority of gun violence that's big and showy and heavily covered by news - like how planes are much, much safer than cars but media coverage makes it seem the other way around.

What's important is that you can't use table 43a to make statements about black people as a group (and this is what the folks invoking "13 does 50" and its variants fail at), because criminals are a small minority of the population. Even if most killers and most robbers are black, killers and robbers are such a small share of the population that that fact doesn't tell you anything about black people as a group.

Agema:
Unless there's more to it that you're saying, I'm not really sure what the problem with that is to make it worth arguing against. It doesn't appear to be coercive.

The general format is something like "if she doesn't want to take one step forward, take 3 steps back and make her have to put the moves on you to get back to what she was already consenting to." The presumption being that if she is the one pursuing, she'll go farther than if she is being pursued, and that that bit of manipulation will encourage her to do so.

The most typical argument against it is that "playing games" with consent like that is emotionally abusive.

Gordon_4:

CM156:

Gethsemani:
However, one need not go farther than to crime statistics to realize that one gender commits the overwhelming majority of violent crimes.

Trust me: you don?t want to open the door to making widesweeping conclusions on populations based on crime statistics. That?s how we got ? 13 do 50?

At the risk of seeming ignorant, can you expand on what you mean?

I went ahead and expounded on it, TL;DR is that applying the same approach regarding crime statistics and gender that Gethsemani used to race would leave one to need to question why blacks are so incredibly violent compared to every other racial group[2].

[2] Took that phrasing directly from Gethsemani talking about men. Why? Because it being deemed unacceptably racist (which it very well might be) demonstrates very clearly my point.

Agema:

I don't think women are generally averse to nice guys - depending on what we mean by "nice", probably the opposite is true on average. The only problem is lacking the social skills to connect well with others. Arguably, a selfish person who recognises what will make their partner happy and does it sometimes is a better option than a nice person who wants to always make their partner happy but keeps failing because they can't recognise what will.

the famous 20% / 80% -rule

I'm not sure this dating "80/20" rule has any particular meaning outside dating apps, as face to face interaction is rarely about checking CVs before you give someone the time of day. We meet prospective partners best in real life: workplaces, in social events, friends of friends, places of worship, wherever we go. We meet them, get a sense of them and bond in face to face interactions, and if things develop further, hook up.

Even with dating apps, let's not forget that enough of the "80% men" still usually get laid, and end up with long-term relationships. Perhaps that's the "80% women" either occasionally drop their standards, or eventually grow up and learn to stop deluding themselves that Prince Charming is just around the corner waiting for her. Or they just meet each other offline, of course.

Arguably discussing the details of what could happen to one person is nothing but some flavor to the overall topic :D. "Eventually" is little solace to someone for whom it means a decade and the relationship in the end is very unequal.

Dunno if you've seen the "Born Sexy Yesterday" trope video, but it describes the movie (and anime, I guess) fantasy trope of more experienced "average" men with sexy but adorably innocent women and proposes that it's better to dream about relationship on equal terms, because those are more likely to actually happen instead of juvenile fantasies.

Thinking about the harmful ideologies bitter and hurt men fall into, what is a reasonable expectation? "Eventually you'll find someone" doesn't cut it. For example arguably encouraging these types to raise women to a pedestal and become their white knights is much better than incels, but it would still be rather terrible.

tstorm823:

CM156:

I'm not going to expressly state the argument, even as a shitpost, because it would probably (rightfully) get me a warning.

I think it's fair to let Wikipedia handle this one.

Surprise, you knew exactly what the dog whistle was.

Schadrach:
I went ahead and expounded on it, TL;DR is that applying the same approach regarding crime statistics and gender that Gethsemani used to race would leave one to need to question why blacks are so incredibly violent compared to every other racial group.

I think you dropped the ball here.

As long as this comparison is entirely without context, so that one social group is interchangeable with another, then this criticism works pretty well. But if you're going to start asking why things are the way they are, you're inviting a comparison of context.

We know why rates of violent offending among African Americans seem so much higher than other ethnic groups. It's because of discriminatory practices such as redlining, which resulted in urban areas of the US becoming segregated between affluent white neighbourhoods and impoverished, under-serviced and over-policed black neighbourhoods, or "ghettos". Desperation and poor standard of living in these areas made them targets for the alcohol industry, drug dealers and organised crime, exacerbating social problems. In the end, you have a community with an inter-generational culture of low expectation, cynicism and desperation which is difficult to escape.

In 1940, the Nazi propaganda ministry released a film called Der ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew). At the time, Jews in Germany and occupied countries were being forcibly moved into segregated ghettos where living conditions were generally desperate and terrible, and much of the footage for the film was shot inside these ghettos. The trick of the film was to present these conditions not as the result of a deliberate policy of segregation and deprivation, but as the natural conditions in which Jews live and have always lived. The film argued that the conditions of material deprivation in which Jews were living justified their segregation from the rest of society when the reality is that those same conditions were created by segregation. It was a clever trick, and it worked, just as it continues to work in America today.

Men, as a category, are not segregated from society. They are not materially deprived compared to the rest of society (quite the opposite, in fact). There is no material context which would explain why men are so much more violent than women. So, why is it that they are?

McElroy:

Thinking about the harmful ideologies bitter and hurt men fall into, what is a reasonable expectation? "Eventually you'll find someone" doesn't cut it. For example arguably encouraging these types to raise women to a pedestal and become their white knights is much better than incels, but it would still be rather terrible.

I think dating and relationships are a bit like anything in life... some people might be naturals, but mostly we get places by normal processes of learning. The more we work at it and apply ourselves, the faster we'll improve. We suck up pain and disappointment and failure along the way, and we use that to learn and get better. And unfortunately, we're just not good at certain things no matter how hard we try.

You might work hard at chess but never make it to grandmaster. You might work hard at trying to get to the top of your profession, but end up in middling competence. This is the stuff of life, and most of us work out where our expectations should lie. I appreciate that sex and relationships have a central importance in most human lives such that medocrity may be painful in a way that it isn't in a career or hobby, and why it might drive people to unconstructive ideologies about gender relationships.

PUAs, incels and white knights, I think, all have unrealistic views about and expectations of women. They need to learn better views. Although I suspect they've got to where they are because they found it extremely hard to do in the first place, or just didn't want to. I think PUAs and incels broadly want women to be obedient robots that conform to men's needs and desires. White knights leave women agency, but still aren't really considering what they may want and need. And I guess at least some women are "damsels in distress", for whom white knights are just the ticket and they might fit together quite well.

And I'd stress, it's not like women don't have all manner of unhealthy ideas about men, too. It's just that they're much less inclined to go mental and gun people down or vigorously propound particularly toxic bile.

McElroy:
Thinking about the harmful ideologies bitter and hurt men fall into, what is a reasonable expectation? "Eventually you'll find someone" doesn't cut it.

I think before we start talking about expectations, we need to establish what it is these bitter and hurt men actually want, and also what they need, because a lot of them seem quite confused about that.

I think it's entirely understandable that so many men hit their twenties and suddenly find they don't know how to act around women, or how to read the signals that someone is interested in them. Men are not raised to be socially motivated in the way women are, which isn't really their fault, and learning social skills requires you to make mistakes and push yourself which can be daunting if you're still stuck in the mentality of high school where social embarrassment is a big deal.

I also think it's somewhat understandable that these men gravitate towards communities like the PUA or redpill subculture, because here you've got these men who are obviously successful because they've got their own ad-supported websites and book deals, and these men are willing to personally teach you and fast track you through all these difficult lessons, and all you have to do in return is to give them your money or your ad revenue.

The problem is, paying people who are, even in the charitable scenario that they are genuine, obsessed with pursuing casual hookups (by any means, legal or otherwise) to teach you how to meet women and have stable and fulfilling relationships is a bad idea, and will unsurprisingly often leave you with very bad ideas about women and relationships. Throwing socially awkward and inexperienced men into hookup culture is like throwing them into the sea with a hundred other people and only one lifeboat. I'm not surprised people believe this 80/20 bullshit if their experience of dating or social interaction is modelled on hookup culture, and while enduring the shittiness of hookup culture might be worth it if that's what you actually want, these men don't even want it (except in the vague sense a lot of men think they want it). It's not surprising you end up with catastrophic expectations if you've been set up to fail by being pushed to pursue something you don't actually want and can't realistically achieve.

But in terms of a reasonable expectation. If "you will eventually find someone" doesn't cut it, what about "you will improve as a person", "you will have fun", "you will have new experiences", "you will make new friends". Again, social motivation is a thing that is very important to develop. This whole idea a lot of men seem to have that socialising is a thing you endure to get what you want from people needs to die, and I don't mean it's ethically objectionable, I mean that it's an incredibly self-destructive way of thinking.

evilthecat:

It's not surprising you end up with catastrophic expectations if you've been set up to fail by being pushed to pursue something you don't actually want and can't realistically achieve.

I really like this sentence. I have nothing to contribute here, but I wanted to tell you that this is a fantastic sentence that applies to really a lot of situations with societal expectations.

I don't know if this Trump staring into the Eclips level of stupid or Tide Pod Level of Stupid. I'll let you decide, but this is ridiculously stupid.

I'm a cist gendered male, and I want to take all their man cards and shove it in a bonfire,

IIRC, the tide pod challenge was more of a stupid joke than something people were doing in any number. Certainly, some people really were that stupid, but I think it was exaggerated.

By contrast, this is a real thing, and the symptom of a much larger problem, so I'd say even more stupid than Tide Pods.

Kwak:

Surprise, you knew exactly what the dog whistle was.

I missed this when you wrote it. Are you criticizing me for being against racism?

These incel guys can't get a woman so they get angry, that anger then scares off women. Its a vicious cycle.

tstorm823:

Kwak:

Surprise, you knew exactly what the dog whistle was.

I missed this when you wrote it. Are you criticizing me for being against racism?

I think the logic is that you were aware of a common argument made by racists, therefore you must be a racist, because only a racist would be aware that racists frequently point to crime statistics as some sort of proof of the inherent inferiority of certain races.

Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now? I don't see how pointing out that claiming that the overrepresentation of men in crime statistics is evidence that men/masculinity have some sort of inherent flaw is uncomfortably similar to the claim made by bigots that the overrepresentation of certain minorities in crime statistics is evidence of some sort of inherent flaw in those minorities is a dogwhistle

Silent Protagonist:
Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

Thaluikhain:

Silent Protagonist:
Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

I'm actually legitimately asking. I understand that may not have been obvious because I loaded that post with a counterproductive amount of snark but I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds, but in practice it just seems to mean "argument made by those I politically disagree with". It didn't seem clear if either of those definitions made sense in the relevant post so I asked the question as it seemed like an odd usage of the term.

tstorm823:

CM156 is saying that just looking at simple crime statistics accounts for neither different societal circumstances experienced by different demographics, nor bias in the criminal justice system. And racists looking at that sort of data will tell you that black Americans are more criminal than everyone else because they're convicted of more crimes. And no honest and informed person should ever make that argument

My apologies. I've wrongfully accused you. My only excuse is your continued defence of Trump in the face of all evidence to the contrary confused and led me to conclusions that (hopefully) were not justified.

Silent Protagonist:

Thaluikhain:

Silent Protagonist:
Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

I'm actually legitimately asking. I understand that may not have been obvious because I loaded that post with a counterproductive amount of snark but I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds, but in practice it just seems to mean "argument made by those I politically disagree with". It didn't seem clear if either of those definitions made sense in the relevant post so I asked the question as it seemed like an odd usage of the term.

Implied argument seemed to be 'if you accept this premise, then you must also accept this racially-based argument about propensity for crime'.
Which is definitely a dog-whistle - ie, a way of making racism seem a reasonable reaction to 'basic facts' (which are actually only 'facts' if you ignore a huge chunk of context and extra investigation into surrounding circumstances, which racists are of course extremely eager to do.)

Well that's my interpretation on the term in this context anyway, there are probably variations.

And I am cautiously optimistic that in this case, the phrase was not warranted and I was mistaken. At least I hope.

Silent Protagonist:

Thaluikhain:

Silent Protagonist:
Also,what does "dogwhistle" even mean anymore? Is it just "talking about things I don't like" now?

No, it has not. Always good to dismiss something that way, though.

I'm actually legitimately asking. I understand that may not have been obvious because I loaded that post with a counterproductive amount of snark but I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds, but in practice it just seems to mean "argument made by those I politically disagree with". It didn't seem clear if either of those definitions made sense in the relevant post so I asked the question as it seemed like an odd usage of the term.

Hey, do you know what a simp is?

tstorm823:

evilthecat:

It's not surprising you end up with catastrophic expectations if you've been set up to fail by being pushed to pursue something you don't actually want and can't realistically achieve.

I really like this sentence. I have nothing to contribute here, but I wanted to tell you that this is a fantastic sentence that applies to really a lot of situations with societal expectations.

The sexist in me wants to say that women first "realistically" achieve what guys are pushed to pursue (casual relationships) and afterwards when they're done with that women again "realistically" achieve serious relationships with the men that are sad enough to settle for them.

Silent Protagonist:
I am genuinely unclear what people mean when they accuse others of dog whistling. Some have told me that told me that dog whistles are these open secret code words or phrases meant to signal that you are a supporter of some sort of shameful ideology that needs to masquerade as something else as tin foil hatty as that sounds

Well, that's something of a misrepresentation, but not a million miles away from what it means, yes. The term "dog whistle" is relatively new, but using innuendo to say something without expicitly saying something is probably as old as language.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.