Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I find even more fascinating is Jill basically said women are inherently weak and nobody really objected to it.
I’ve found more women then not kinda feel that way and don’t feel women have skills to make decisions or be leaders.
I pushed back against the sentiment but I did not directly argue by quoting the post, because I have mentally flagged that poster as someone that I practically never agree with. To a point that I have seen some posts and thought, "Is this actually a woman, or a man pretending to be one in order to start arguments using gender stereotypes??" Not saying that is the case, but I am saying that zentropa's point about "Jill" being a "gender outlier"... Yes. That.
So rather than a pointless argument, since I've already been doing enough of that in this thread at times, I just wrote a post that touched on me not at all needing or wanting any of what she described. But of course I cannot speak for all women any more than she can. Nobody elected either of us to represent them, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atari2600
I think I've figured out your problem...
...
Here's a couple about women working or some crazy nonsense...
and then there's an ANTIFA guy who goes on about social status and some other crazy stuff.
Don't ask me to do your labor for you (looking up crazy posts), unless you want to pay me a living wage for it... hahaha, just kidding. But yeah, seriously... have fun with those other 47 pages.
OK hang on a sec there... I do not care for your use of the word, "blame" in this post. I was not BLAMING the incel issue on women working.
I was trying to say, OK let's think about the various things that have shifted in society during my lifetime and maybe a generation or two before it. (I am also a baby Gen X/almost Millennial.) I don't BLAME anything because that implies fault or doing something wrong or that it makes any sense to reverse changes/progress to try and fix ancillary ripple problems, which it does NOT.
If 5, or 10, or even 27% of men are having trouble adapting to the way things have changed, that does not mean that the rest of us should endure a rewind to the way things were in like 1950 or something so that they can be OK. Which cannot and never will happen in any event, anyways. That's silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pclem
OK, so you admit you pulled white supremacy (which is used as an ad hominem smear by so many people who disagree with something these days) out of your butt. I'm pretty sure I myself was the only one to mention the word white, and it was only to say that white men have been scientifically proven to have it easier than other races in the dating market (while East Asian men have it the hardest). That is by no means espousing white supremacism.
Neither of those posts you cite advocate for abolishing women in the workplace. One simply points out that working women have less dependence on men, and can afford economically to be more selective / remain single, which no one could disagree with. The other says that wealth inequality (which is real and rising) can breed anger and resentment, which is undeniably true. So I think you're going to need something else to clutch your pearls over.
I think I touched on both of those points.
These are simply shifts that change people's thinking and decisions and stress levels in various kinds of ways. The incel effect is perhaps partially related to that, along with a perfect storm of like a dozen other things.
And beyond, I agree very much with Atari there that people being in front of screens and not interacting with humans, is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, changes that has been messing up people's social behavior...and let's face it, ok, human beings only really thrive as a species for two main reasons. 1. Intelligence. 2. Social cooperation. We are messing around with one of the top two reasons that we exist here. And of course our mating behaviors are linked to it.
Atari, there was a reason that these were the last words in the post that you copied a link to. Maybe YOU were not reading all of the words (though I don't blame you, I do spew out way too many of them, most of the time. Guilty.)
Quote:
...in our homes staring at screens rather than interacting with other PEOPLE??
Atari, there was a reason that these were the last words in the post that you copied a link to. Maybe YOU were not reading all of the words (though I don't blame you, I do spew out way too many of them, most of the time. Guilty.)
Haha, I agreed with that part of it, but I think to assume that women's rights have anything to do with incels is blindingly ignorant at best. I know that it's not your #1 reason, and you probably put it in there to lend support to someone else's argument as an attempt at an olive branch, but I'm far beyond dealing with nonsense arguments.
Life is not that complicated. People are not that complicated. People want things. If they can't get it, and they are led to believe that someone else is to blame for them not getting something, they will hold animosity and anger towards them. Furthermore, when said individuals congregate and start talking about such things, they only fuel eachother's anger.
This is entirely true, for everything from people who believe the cashier at McDonalds deserves a "living wage" for putting a cheeseburger in a bag and making change ... to a socially awkward boy who's a dork that spends all his time on his computer and hates women because he can't get the sex that all his middle school and high school peers say they get every single night.
We can't coddle idiots like some of the responses on here who think there's a socioeconomic reason, or that we live in a misogynistic society, or some other completely retarded reason. The simple answer to the stupid question in the first place is... "Asperger's syndrome, social awkwardness, computers, social media... makes people angry and eliminates the development of social skills."
This conversation, for example... you and me... if we met at a bar, I could care less if you have a crush on AOC, or I have Ronald Reagan tattooed on my left butt cheek (I don't)... we'd probably find something in common and have a beer and have a good time. But kids today... damn. I have high hopes for Gen-Z though. My own daughter is far more normal. She's friends with everyone, regardless of political affiliation and stupid pronouns... just like how our generation was. Don't feed the psychosis of these weirdos by being compassionate to their insanity.
But kids today... damn. I have high hopes for Gen-Z though. My own daughter is far more normal. She's friends with everyone, regardless of political affiliation and stupid pronouns... just like how our generation was. Don't feed the psychosis of these weirdos by being compassionate to their insanity.
I also think Gen Z is different. Not so enamored of social media. Realistic about life. Understand that nothing's going to get handed to them so they have to go and get it for themselves.
Jill1983’s post was about the preference for relationships where the men are confident, stoic, “rocks” that “contrast the weaknesses like self-esteem issues” of the women in the relationship. I’m not even interpreting, that’s literally what she said.
That sounds like a recipe for a relationship that’s not very healthy, possibly abusive.
You can be a confident rock and still be able to express emotions. I don't see that as mutually exclusive. I don't think it means the man has to be confident in everything, either. There are a lot of things my honey isn't good at, so not confident in.
In dating, confident really just meant to me that the person can 1. ask me out 2. Talk to me when we meet 3. Make simple decisions (like where we might go) with a degree of certainty behind them and not be so unsure of yourself that you can't even suggest a restaurant for dinner so that the burden for planning every date falls on me. To me being a rock in a relationship means when I'm panicking because we're having a huge thunderstorm, that he's calming me down, telling me everything will be fine, and taking whatever steps to ensure that. It has nothing to do with having emotions. He cries more easily at certain movies than I do.
I really am not sure what the poster meant by self-esteem issues.
Meeting in organic settings has never worked for me. Granted I don't get out much, but there has never been anyone interested enough to approach me when I do. And of course I'm sure as heck not going to approach THEM. Especially considering my track record with that sort of thing.
You need a group where the same people meet all the time and you can get to know people. Approaching people you don't know at all is never going to work for you.
I don't know what was up with those guys not wanting to meet. I would think that meeting up would be the whole point.
With that being said, I have been guilty of that as well. But probably for a different reason.
In my case, I live in a very rural area and had to extend my online search net pretty far. Which meant that I could end up talking to someone several hours away. So a quick meetup wasn't really practical.
Therefore I exchanged messages with the person for a bit and if all was going well, began talking on the phone. If things were still going well then we could discus meeting up.
Which was something that would indeed require a discussion since she would probably be living somewhere that I wasn't familiar with. Also it could get a bit expensive driving that far. So I wanted to make sure that there was at least some possibility that we would hit it off before I made the investment.
But that was my mindset at the time. If someone lived a lot closer, then they really shouldn't be putting off meeting up for weeks at a time.
I stopped trying long distance for those very reasons. There is no way to determine if you'll hit it off until you're face to face. I had one horrible date with a guy that drove down from NYC, 2 hours away. I knew 15 minutes after meeting him there wasn't going to be a connection, ut I felt obligated to spend the day with him because he drove so far. I didn't live in an area with a lot of singles, but after that I tried to stick to within an hour. IMO it worked much better to just meet right away and see if there was any spark.
OK, so you admit you pulled white supremacy (which is used as an ad hominem smear by so many people who disagree with something these days) out of your butt. I'm pretty sure I myself was the only one to mention the word white, and it was only to say that white men have been scientifically proven to have it easier than other races in the dating market (while East Asian men have it the hardest). That is by no means espousing white supremacism.
Neither of those posts you cite advocate for abolishing women in the workplace. One simply points out that working women have less dependence on men, and can afford economically to be more selective / remain single, which no one could disagree with. The other says that wealth inequality (which is real and rising) can breed anger and resentment, which is undeniably true. So I think you're going to need something else to clutch your pearls over.
As a self-supporting woman, I don't think the fact that women aren't financially dependent on me anymore means they don't want to be in a relationship. It just means they don't have to settle for someone they may not even really like the way women over 25 or so would in my mom's day. I always wanted a relationship. I had a good job, friends, great apartment but I felt that absence keenly. I don't know any single women who don't want to be in a long-term relationship, regardless how successful they are.
As a self-supporting woman, I don't think the fact that women aren't financially dependent on me anymore means they don't want to be in a relationship. It just means they don't have to settle for someone they may not even really like the way women over 25 or so would in my mom's day. I always wanted a relationship. I had a good job, friends, great apartment but I felt that absence keenly. I don't know any single women who don't want to be in a long-term relationship, regardless how successful they are.
We may want it, but the point (which I think *nods in the direction of the post just upthread* Atari is also missing here) is that some men may not be adapting to a shift that means there are different standards. They are stuck in believing that the expectations are based on simply looks or money, with women demanding the top tier of both. When in fact, that's not it...what we need is a man who is a net positive to our lives. Because we don't require a provider nor necessarily a protector per se, we require someone who will bring more happiness than unhappiness to our daily reality.
And we don't have to settle, as you say, for what my Grandmothers had to settle for, we are not locked into marriage because we now have no-fault divorce, and we are not facing (most of us) starvation, homelessness, or being a social pariah because we are single or divorced, either. We CAN live alone. So if it's better, then we will. And I'm not arguing (as some incels do) that society needs to change course to force women to have to put up with crap again... I'm arguing that men need to adapt and have a good hard look at themselves, and ask the question, "can I even be an appealing partner?" and adjust themselves if not.
Oddly, though there is a surface appearance of disagreement, Atari and I hold a similar core position that the responsibility (the word I prefer rather than fault/blame) lies on these guys to step away from the computer and figure out their crap. Get help, get healthy, do whatever they might be able to do, rather than engage with an angry little internet circle jerk of blame and hostility towards society and/or women.
Yes, things have changed. But most people really aren't having that much trouble keeping up and finding a way to exist within a changing world.
But when I say that women are happy enough to be on our own... I mean that women have a relatively clear picture that being alone is better than being in an unhappy relationship. Men are not so much competing against one another for our companionship, they are competing against our quality of life as a solo person, and those who don't meet that bar, aren't necessarily entitled to a partner.
The incels on the other hand, don't really question if a relationship would be happy or not, they assume that all of the difficulty is in getting one, and if they could just do that, the rest would be easy peasy. Most women know better, and if we don't, we'll learn really quick.
We may want it, but the point (which I think *nods in the direction of the post just upthread* Atari is also missing here) is that some men may not be adapting to a shift that means there are different standards. They are stuck in believing that the expectations are based on simply looks or money, with women demanding the top tier of both. When in fact, that's not it...what we need is a man who is a net positive to our lives. Because we don't require a provider nor necessarily a protector per se, we require someone who will bring more happiness than unhappiness to our daily reality.
And we don't have to settle, as you say, for what my Grandmothers had to settle for, we are not locked into marriage because we now have no-fault divorce, and we are not facing (most of us) starvation, homelessness, or being a social pariah because we are single or divorced, either. We CAN live alone. So if it's better, then we will. And I'm not arguing (as some incels do) that society needs to change course to force women to have to put up with crap again... I'm arguing that men need to adapt and have a good hard look at themselves, and ask the question, "can I even be an appealing partner?" and adjust themselves if not.
Oddly, though there is a surface appearance of disagreement, Atari and I hold a similar core position that the responsibility (the word I prefer rather than fault/blame) lies on these guys to step away from the computer and figure out their crap. Get help, get healthy, do whatever they might be able to do, rather than engage with an angry little internet circle jerk of blame and hostility towards society and/or women.
Yes, things have changed. But most people really aren't having that much trouble keeping up and finding a way to exist within a changing world.
But when I say that women are happy enough to be on our own... I mean that women have a relatively clear picture that being alone is better than being in an unhappy relationship. Men are not so much competing against one another for our companionship, they are competing against our quality of life as a solo person, and those who don't meet that bar, aren't necessarily entitled to a partner.
The incels on the other hand, don't really question if a relationship would be happy or not, they assume that all of the difficulty is in getting one, and if they could just do that, the rest would be easy peasy. Most women know better, and if we don't, we'll learn really quick.
Haha, I agreed with that part of it, but I think to assume that women's rights have anything to do with incels is blindingly ignorant at best. I know that it's not your #1 reason, and you probably put it in there to lend support to someone else's argument as an attempt at an olive branch, but I'm far beyond dealing with nonsense arguments.
Life is not that complicated. People are not that complicated. People want things. If they can't get it, and they are led to believe that someone else is to blame for them not getting something, they will hold animosity and anger towards them. Furthermore, when said individuals congregate and start talking about such things, they only fuel eachother's anger.
This is entirely true, for everything from people who believe the cashier at McDonalds deserves a "living wage" for putting a cheeseburger in a bag and making change ... to a socially awkward boy who's a dork that spends all his time on his computer and hates women because he can't get the sex that all his middle school and high school peers say they get every single night.
We can't coddle idiots like some of the responses on here who think there's a socioeconomic reason, or that we live in a misogynistic society, or some other completely retarded reason. The simple answer to the stupid question in the first place is... "Asperger's syndrome, social awkwardness, computers, social media... makes people angry and eliminates the development of social skills."
This conversation, for example... you and me... if we met at a bar, I could care less if you have a crush on AOC, or I have Ronald Reagan tattooed on my left butt cheek (I don't)... we'd probably find something in common and have a beer and have a good time. But kids today... damn. I have high hopes for Gen-Z though. My own daughter is far more normal. She's friends with everyone, regardless of political affiliation and stupid pronouns... just like how our generation was. Don't feed the psychosis of these weirdos by being compassionate to their insanity.
You do you, but no need to impugn the motives of those of us who are retarded and imagine misogyny and thrive on our nonsense arguments in favor of coddling weirdo dorky young men who have Asperger's or are socially awkward or engage in too much screen time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
