Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 94

Thread: What's the solution to atomization?

  1. #41
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Inferno 13th floor
    TIM
    IEE-Ne5w4/1w9/2 SPSX
    Posts
    550
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Have you ever heard of the DSM? There are so many "illnesses" that basically everyone can be labelled with something.
    Are you afraid of being labelled as crazy?
    I rarely feel alone. I rarely talk to anyone, yet in my head i have the most amazing, the most fantastic discussions with the people in my life. In real life, what most people talk about is several orders of magnitude lesser than their inner experiences. Most people never reveal the singularity of their subjective experience.
    Maybe I should learn to explore other people's consciousness. Maybe I should aim for a real space between me and others. Instead of cultivating monologues and fantasies. It's hard, but the alternative to this seems to be madness. ~ lkdhf qkb

    Life is soup. I'm fork


  2. #42
    The Self is temporary but xSFxs are eternal one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Home
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are more single mothers than ever before, without someone to help them raise their children.
    This happens most of the time because the father is stupid and irresponsible (or maybe both of them are). But it's not like being a single mother is an inherently terrible thing. What if the other parent is a terrible person? Wouldn't having him/her at home just make things worse for the kids? I'd say it's a factor that women have more freedom now and can leave their spouses if they want to. And people can now easily break off relationships that don't serve them. Over time we are slowly breaking down barriers that limit us because we now know better.

    Also it's actually good that people are getting more and more alone these days, maybe when they have no one to talk to anymore and get bored with their phones they will start contemplating more about their life decisions. Why do we need to have children? Why do we need to talk to people all the time? (Also if you are) why are you a fucking incel? Why do you think you need someone to complete you? Most people just go with what people around them do.

    Atomization or whatever you call it seems terrible for sure but it's just a byproduct of our society's conditions and our current knowledge. It's a necessity to rise up. Lack of religion, lack of moral foundations, lack of social connection - this is a good breeding ground for people to realize their own values. Soon we'll be reaching new heights in self-discovery, which will be the solution or the next step to our current situation.
    Last edited by one; 03-09-2021 at 01:41 AM.

  3. #43
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,428
    Mentioned
    365 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Part of the problem I think is people working all the time, with less time for socialisation. Maybe better financial planning would help.

    Possibly also the urban sprawl is a big issue. More green spaces would help in places with tolerable weather.

    More social and community groups would be advantageous, although I get the feeling if those were a good fix, they would already have been well-utilised.

    I think alienation happens partly as a person ages while losing their past friends but also because of deprivation in an area. Politicians probably don't have a big incentive to tackle such deprivation, because those areas tend not to vote as much. Giving more power to local authorities/politicians may help.

  4. #44
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Part of the problem I think is people working all the time, with less time for socialisation. Maybe better financial planning would help.

    Possibly also the urban sprawl is a big issue. More green spaces would help in places with tolerable weather.

    More social and community groups would be advantageous, although I get the feeling if those were a good fix, they would already have been well-utilised.

    I think alienation happens partly as a person ages while losing their past friends but also because of deprivation in an area. Politicians probably don't have a big incentive to tackle such deprivation, because those areas tend not to vote as much. Giving more power to local authorities/politicians may help.
    Can't plan finances you don't have. Social welfare is going to be an increasing necessity.

  5. #45
    the16reddits.info MrInternet42069's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Monte Carlo
    TIM
    ESI-Fi 461 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,377
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Better family values, role models, support networks & communities. More empathy. Faith is helpful too but shouldn't be shoved down people's throats.

  6. #46
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Inferno 13th floor
    TIM
    IEE-Ne5w4/1w9/2 SPSX
    Posts
    550
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    And why shouldn't men want to be involved in their offspring's lives, if their involvement is more likely to improve the chances for their offspring's well-being/life/ability to fuck women?
    Because it's not selfish, it's self-sacrificing. And therefore idiotic.
    It doesn't benefit you. It just benefits the health of the species.
    Sorry to bust in. Just curious, who are you? Is 'you' just a concept you use to justify your selfishness and greed? Do you think you start the moment you were born and end the moment you die? You were produced out of your parents flesh and chromosomes, out of their love(hopefully), nourished by their thoughts, their efforts. Do you think that they think that they sacrificed themselves ? Didn't they see something in you that was different from other kids and similar to themselves?

    If you aren't the species, who is? Is it just an abstract concept? Maybe you should move beyond simple dichotomies like me/species. One can serve both interests, because in a way they are the same.
    I rarely feel alone. I rarely talk to anyone, yet in my head i have the most amazing, the most fantastic discussions with the people in my life. In real life, what most people talk about is several orders of magnitude lesser than their inner experiences. Most people never reveal the singularity of their subjective experience.
    Maybe I should learn to explore other people's consciousness. Maybe I should aim for a real space between me and others. Instead of cultivating monologues and fantasies. It's hard, but the alternative to this seems to be madness. ~ lkdhf qkb

    Life is soup. I'm fork


  7. #47
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    10,197
    Mentioned
    1077 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    So, what do the numbers say about how we're doing?

    https://jabberwocking.com/american-w...y-great-shape/

    Meanwhile, what does Fox News have to say?

    https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-...nue-human-race

    Man, I guess we're all doomed.

  8. #48
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrInternet42069 View Post
    Better family values, role models, support networks & communities. More empathy. Faith is helpful too but shouldn't be shoved down people's throats.
    -Family values are everywhere in the Bible belt. The Bible belt and the southeast in the USA are the poorest places.
    -Faith is only helpful if you're naturally inclined towards it. And even then there's caveats.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-and-the-nones

    "For example, a just-published study by Dr. Joseph Baker at East Tennessee State University indicates that atheists have the best mental health among the "nones," similar to that of the highly-religious. In contrast, "non-affiliated theists" had the poorest mental health."

  9. #49
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    So, what do the numbers say about how we're doing?

    https://jabberwocking.com/american-w...y-great-shape/

    Meanwhile, what does Fox News have to say?

    https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-...nue-human-race

    Man, I guess we're all doomed.
    Selective statistics ftw

  10. #50
    the16reddits.info MrInternet42069's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Monte Carlo
    TIM
    ESI-Fi 461 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,377
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    -Family values are everywhere in the Bible belt. The Bible belt and the southeast in the USA are the poorest places.
    -Faith is only helpful if you're naturally inclined towards it. And even then there's caveats.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-and-the-nones

    "For example, a just-published study by Dr. Joseph Baker at East Tennessee State University indicates that atheists have the best mental health among the "nones," similar to that of the highly-religious. In contrast, "non-affiliated theists" had the poorest mental health."

  11. #51
    Cool it with the anti-Grenitic remarks bucko! Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    2,198
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    Sorry to bust in. Just curious, who are you? Is 'you' just a concept you use to justify your selfishness and greed? Do you think you start the moment you were born and end the moment you die?
    Yes.

    When I die, the world will end.


    You were produced out of your parents flesh and chromosomes, out of their love(hopefully), nourished by their thoughts, their efforts.
    Two idiots fucked each other one day.


    Do you think that they think that they sacrificed themselves ? Didn't they see something in you that was different from other kids and similar to themselves?
    They were blinded by their kin-selective impulses to try and salvage a pile of abject genetic waste that could not and should not ever be saved.
    Love is a sin, it preserves what's ripest for destruction.

  12. #52
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Inferno 13th floor
    TIM
    IEE-Ne5w4/1w9/2 SPSX
    Posts
    550
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    YThey were blinded by their kin-selective impulses to try and salvage a pile of abject genetic waste that could not and should not ever be saved. Love is a sin, it preserves what's ripest for destruction.
    Love is love. It isn't neither a sin nor a value, but a reality. You accuse your parents of being blinded by some weird biological jargon that has become the reality you preach religiously to anyone who listens, but it's you who is so blinded by greed, nihilism and pseudo-scientific explanations you can't see the simple fact that there are people in your life that have always been there for you(hopefully).

    There is no value to destruction. You are who you are; not genetic waste. They probably love you for just existing; not because you needed saving. So learn to love yourself, and then maybe you will see that you were never alone.
    I rarely feel alone. I rarely talk to anyone, yet in my head i have the most amazing, the most fantastic discussions with the people in my life. In real life, what most people talk about is several orders of magnitude lesser than their inner experiences. Most people never reveal the singularity of their subjective experience.
    Maybe I should learn to explore other people's consciousness. Maybe I should aim for a real space between me and others. Instead of cultivating monologues and fantasies. It's hard, but the alternative to this seems to be madness. ~ lkdhf qkb

    Life is soup. I'm fork


  13. #53
    Cool it with the anti-Grenitic remarks bucko! Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    B I T C H
    Posts
    2,198
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    Love is love. It isn't neither a sin nor a value, but a reality. You accuse your parents of being blinded by some weird biological jargon that has become the reality you preach religiously to anyone who listens, but it's you who is so blinded by greed, nihilism and pseudo-scientific explanations you can't see the simple fact that there are people in your life that have always been there for you(hopefully).
    And yet it's wasted on me.

    Any "love" whose culmination allows me to come into existence has utterly refuted life.

  14. #54
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    297 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    like the ugly truth behind marketing is that it is not showing what a business wants to sell, but what the population wants to buy, so it is true for the media and technology in general: they dont feed us what they want, we're the one pursuing them.


    it's cute that we analyze the matter and point out the problems and idealize a better change but these big doomy talks are sorta hypocritical coming from online forumees, i hope u realize :]

  15. #55
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    10,197
    Mentioned
    1077 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

  16. #56

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    11,738
    Mentioned
    359 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    WoW. Well, first off- I never even really believed in the 'power of friendship' even before the internet became so popular and Karen-ized. It always seemed to me like such a fake and brittle thing, easily broken the second 'shit got real' as it were. I guess I just can't miss something that I never valued or even believed in much to begin with. I think people just want to start families with an individual they like in a private close Fi way you know. Even if Fi is your PoLR. I don't think people want 'friends.' I think that's some dumb Illuminati thing they tried teaching us when we were younger so they could spy on people's vulnerabilities, but like anything fake and business-y - it's just fake and business-y.

    "I'm not here to make friends" when a reality tv show contestant says that- it sounds redundant and stupid, because really honey- who the fuck is?

    As for men hating women- ehhh can you really blame some of them? The way Te society has handled this issue has been incredibly awful and hurtful. Don't make misogyny out to be this campy scapegoated demon that it isn't- it doesn't work that way. Plenty of males that hate women have had real, bad experiences with women only wanting one type of guy- or women simply being cruel jerks to them or even sexually abusing them and getting away with it because they are women and they have the illusion of greater innocence backing them up, and so they are just cruel jerks back to them. It doesn't make it 'right' but people are usually going to just dish out to the world the same amount of kindness it initially gave to them. You can't just expect people to be the bigger person- well, they should, of course definitely- but as Xena would say while staring at a campfire intently 'that's so hard to do.' If people truly want to stop misogyny, they should probably not look at this issue as so one-sided and unfair to the male's perspective. In my experience it's often a misandrist that's projecting lol! They always want males to be just one certain way and are sooo annoyed and hateful that we are varied.

    The problem with society is that it tends to treat mild or curable forms of "misogyny" as though the guy was Ted Bundy or some Bundy in the making but that's not really close to the truth and it's way too one sided and stupid. Because people get some virtue signal pat on the back for the 'I support women thing!' You can treat a lot of "misogyny" simply by being kind to the person and showing them not all women are X yourself ((much of the fire gets fueled because the "feminist" really does do the things the incel rants to them about though even if it's not PC to admit that)) - but to be fair the incel/woman hater also has to be looking for something different themselves as well.

    I also hate a lot of straight male feminists, because it's often such a gross and ingenuine thing. Like white knighting women just so they will touch you sexually because you're not an alpha guy or the type of males women usually want- so you try to be sexual with women by basically completely bowing down to their narcissism & being a doormat ((when most women are going to be repulsed by this and further not touch you like you want so then you get in real world trouble for sexually abusing or harassing them lol)) but I should be a bit more compassionate to this maybe because I'm not straight and so it's probably just some mating strategy for less-alpha guys. But I still find it immoral and disgusting. Because you could give two shits about 'female empowerment' you just want to be some dumb beta str8 cuck around a bunch of women sexually and paint it as some noble thing.

    I mean, sticking up for an entire gender or denouncing it as a whole no matter what gender ur talking about is retarded to me anyway because don't we have our individuality any more. I thought that was the entire point- but in "feminism" women just often become every hateful negative stereotype they're trying to fight off really. No, gay guys aren't any better- that's why I'm not in any gay movement organizations either. I loathe anything Te.

    I probably agree that people fucking and making kids less is a good thing- and also gay men fucking less is good too. Less people and less AIDS - win/win. As history has shown us, not much good came from people being soulless fuck machines anyway. I mean I like primal brutal "animalistic" sex as much as the next human- but if it isn't meaningful or loving as well, what's the point really? We should have a quality of human species not quantity anyway- a perfection of elites, not 'I bred durr cuz gawd told me to do so' Cleetus from Simpsons voice.

    and this is just a whiny introverted thing- but the world feels too busy and chaotic and 'overdone' to me as it is. I don't want another person added to the already chaotic insanity mix.
    Last edited by BandD; 03-03-2021 at 03:41 AM.

  17. #57
    thought criminal shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ୧༼ಠ益ಠ╭∩╮༽
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    2,024
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Have you ever heard of the DSM? There are so many "illnesses" that basically everyone can be labelled with something.
    They arbitrarily change definitions, yeah.

  18. #58
    thought criminal shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ୧༼ಠ益ಠ╭∩╮༽
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    2,024
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You know you are an atomized product of globalized society when you have more than 50% common culture with ppl from other nations and one day you notice that everything is easier for you in English.. while in your native language you struggle and get annoyed when dealing with higher lvl language necessities.



    Sometimes its like I'm an alien in my own community. This is very sad.

  19. #59
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,725
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Huh. Maybe there's another lesson to the tower of babel.

    For a healthy functioning ecosystem you need diversity, different things filling different niches. Monoculture is bad environmentally, agriculturally, and probably for humanity itself as well. Globalism is a death blow imo. Smaller businesses, smaller churches, smaller communities, more variety, less giant overarching megabusinesses running the whole world off a cliff. Localize for more resilience, create natural redundancy into the system.

  20. #60
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    297 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    support your local veggies!

  21. #61
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,826
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    As to the incel thing, I see that as a consequence (at least in part) of women being more educated (in terms of degrees I mean), and many men falling behind in this area, perhaps because the education system is less attuned to men and how they function. And as much as I criticize Jordan Petesrson, he makes some good points about why this is, ie men having lower levels of accomodation and thus quitting more easily, including in college. Statistically speaking, more degrees means a higher position in society, and many men are finding themselves in difficult situations not being able to compete with many women (or a certain percentage of men) in terms of the resulting social status. I think here the solution is complex, perhaps again investing more public money into men's college-level education and professional training would be a solution. Also psychologists (hopefully those with a different approach than JP) should interest themselves in this question more. It is their job after all, and many seem out of touch with this. I think the elites have taken too much of an interest in so-called minorities, when it comes to their political and charitable involvment, and just forgot about the white working class that struggles, as well.
    I'm glad that someone brought up Jordan Peterson. I also criticize him a lot for his political views, views on women's place in society, views on race and IQ, selective crticism of censorship, and for his bumbling attempts to demonstrate expertise outside of his own field.

    But, in his haphazard and imprecise way, keeping in mind that his writings act like a Rorschach test, he has put his finger on the crisis of modern masculinity.

    I agree that there is a lack of male-centric education, and that a renewed emphasis on trades, perhaps as early as age ten, seems like a noteworthy suggestion. Germany does this through a selective school system that may be controversial in some other Western countries.

    Trades are also vital to the economy, pay well, and are some of the hardest jobs to automate. But that's a separate discussion.

  22. #62
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,826
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd go further: some of JBP's suggestions are actually good.

    When your mother tells you to "clean your room", it's because she's embarassed that visitors might see it. Whether or not that's a fair interpretation of her request, it is a common one. When JBP tells you to clean your room, it's because control over one's environment (and, by extension, one's self) is the starting point of agency and independence. The same suggestion, coming from a paternal authority figure, has a completely different meaning.

    What do feminists offer as the role for men in society? Mainly what not to do: don't abuse women, don't rape, etc. The reduction of domestic violence and rape are an unambiguous good. But, on their own, these are orders and regulations: a series of formulaic negative restrictions, not a charismatic, positive vision for how to be a man in modern society. Only another, older male role model can give you that.

    JBP is a reactionary, let's not mince words. Let's keep in mind that "clean your room" is a double entendre which also means "don't question the system"; accept your place as a cog in a vast bureaucratic machine; and that your superiors have earned their place by nature, not by structural chicanery. The upshot of JBP's rhetoric is to sanitize the abuses of power.

    The best thing to happen to people like this, IMO, is to lose. With their political threat gone, the tribal animosity is lifted, and it becomes easier, politically, for their opponents to pick up a less noxious version of their ideas.

  23. #63
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,826
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    No. Christianity found it easy to spread because of the Roman peace, the roads, and Latin being the common language.
    I know that you're being facetious, but I was being serious. Religion offers an immediate solution to loneliness, friendlessness, and low value as a mate. Religion is also vehemently outspoken about the dangers of porn and other forms of hyperstimulus.

  24. #64
    thought criminal shotgunfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ୧༼ಠ益ಠ╭∩╮༽
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    2,024
    Mentioned
    168 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    lmao

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    I'd go further: some of JBP's suggestions are actually good.
    JP aka Kermit aka Mr. Rug Salesman aka Crabman and Dragondildo.. is a hypocrite and a drug addict who almost died from OD... e_e ain't gon listen to that moderate liberal globalist shill in a million years.

  25. #65
    Too lazy to write much qaz00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    SLI-Te
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    What do feminists offer as the role for men in society? Mainly what not to do: don't abuse women, don't rape, etc. The reduction of domestic violence and rape are an unambiguous good. But, on their own, these are orders and regulations: a series of formulaic negative restrictions, not a charismatic, positive vision for how to be a man in modern society. Only another, older male role model can give you that.
    I wonder why men are supposed to have a particular role in society. We're not cavemen anymore, men don't go hunt because they have more physical strength while women stay near the cave to take care of children, gossip and pick berries. Gender's occupations and social spheres don't differ much now because differences between them are now much less important. Personally I'm a fan of dropping gender stereotypes completely, let everyone do what they want and have potential for.

    Also, "older male role model", this sounds like pseudo-psychological BS. There are a lot of possible sources to learn how to be a good person for yourself and others, is there any experimental data proving you need this particular kind of person near you to develop? Feminists rising awareness of how abuse is harmful isn't shaping a role for men, it's a basic human thing not to do it, directed at everyone. It's easier to advise what not to do because some things are bad universally without exceptions, with good things it's not that simple. Almost everyone agrees rape is bad and you mustn't do it, but there's not such agreement about what to do, I'm trying to think of a thing in life that's undeniably worth doing for everyone and I don't have an idea. Recommendations about what to do and what not to are not two sides of the same coin, no role models will flood you with advice on the former, feminists aren't deficient in this category in comparison too.

  26. #66
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Inferno 13th floor
    TIM
    IEE-Ne5w4/1w9/2 SPSX
    Posts
    550
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qaz00 View Post
    I wonder why men are supposed to have a particular role in society. We're not cavemen anymore, men don't go hunt because they have more physical strength while women stay near the cave to take care of children, gossip and pick berries. Gender's occupations and social spheres don't differ much now because differences between them are now much less important. Personally I'm a fan of dropping gender stereotypes completely, let everyone do what they want and have potential for.
    I agree with you on principle, but gender roles are just a part of human society. It's like in our unconscious. There is a price to everyone acting like they want, and that's the atomisation that is the topic of this thread. In an atomised society, no one is allowed to expect anything from someone, so everyone has to do things by himself or negociate like crazy which dimishes productivity but also trust in others and makes relationships more difficult. It's harder to become a team. It's like soccer, if everyone wants to be a goalie, you can't play!

    Quote Originally Posted by qaz00 View Post
    Also, "older male role model", this sounds like pseudo-psychological BS. There are a lot of possible sources to learn how to be a good person for yourself and others, is there any experimental data proving you need this particular kind of person near you to develop? Feminists rising awareness of how abuse is harmful isn't shaping a role for men, it's a basic human thing not to do it, directed at everyone. It's easier to advise what not to do because some things are bad universally without exceptions, with good things it's not that simple. Almost everyone agrees rape is bad and you mustn't do it, but there's not such agreement about what to do, I'm trying to think of a thing in life that's undeniably worth doing for everyone and I don't have an idea. Recommendations about what to do and what not to are not two sides of the same coin, no role models will flood you with advice on the former, feminists aren't deficient in this category in comparison too.
    I don't think that men should have a particular role in society, however some roles in society have to 'be filled' independently of one's gender for society to function correctly. These archetypal roles that lie in our unconscious will always come up. A child needs a father figure; whether this father figure is a woman or a man or an old japanese neighbour doesn't matter, but if the child has no one on which to unconsciously defer this 'responsabilizing authority', they won't socialize correctly, meaning they will be irresponsible/entitled/lazy or afraid of life....




    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    What do feminists offer as the role for men in society? Mainly what not to do: don't abuse women, don't rape, etc. The reduction of domestic violence and rape are an unambiguous good. But, on their own, these are orders and regulations: a series of formulaic negative restrictions, not a charismatic, positive vision for how to be a man in modern society. Only another, older male role model can give you that.
    The problem with extreme feminism is that those women take up a position in society; it's not about freedom from gender stereotypes at all. They see themselves as victims and in this little theater play, men then turn into persecuters that have to be castrated in a way or another. Men are not seen for what they are, but for what a minority of men do/structural problems and this viewpoint serves to justify feminists venting their frustation and aggresion at every man they meet. I don't blame feminists, since patriarchy has been oppressing women for a long time, but it would be better for everyone if things were adressed from a viewpoints of facts and not positions.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    JBP is a reactionary, let's not mince words. Let's keep in mind that "clean your room" is a double entendre which also means "don't question the system"; accept your place as a cog in a vast bureaucratic machine; and that your superiors have earned their place by nature, not by structural chicanery. The upshot of JBP's rhetoric is to sanitize the abuses of power.

    The best thing to happen to people like this, IMO, is to lose. With their political threat gone, the tribal animosity is lifted, and it becomes easier, politically, for their opponents to pick up a less noxious version of their ideas.
    And that is how a counterculture gets integrated into society. Maybe this will lead to a more balanced and less hypocritical understanding of gender politics.
    I rarely feel alone. I rarely talk to anyone, yet in my head i have the most amazing, the most fantastic discussions with the people in my life. In real life, what most people talk about is several orders of magnitude lesser than their inner experiences. Most people never reveal the singularity of their subjective experience.
    Maybe I should learn to explore other people's consciousness. Maybe I should aim for a real space between me and others. Instead of cultivating monologues and fantasies. It's hard, but the alternative to this seems to be madness. ~ lkdhf qkb

    Life is soup. I'm fork


  27. #67
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,826
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by qaz00 View Post
    I wonder why men are supposed to have a particular role in society. We're not cavemen anymore, men don't go hunt because they have more physical strength while women stay near the cave to take care of children, gossip and pick berries. Gender's occupations and social spheres don't differ much now because differences between them are now much less important. Personally I'm a fan of dropping gender stereotypes completely, let everyone do what they want and have potential for.

    Also, "older male role model", this sounds like pseudo-psychological BS. There are a lot of possible sources to learn how to be a good person for yourself and others, is there any experimental data proving you need this particular kind of person near you to develop? Feminists rising awareness of how abuse is harmful isn't shaping a role for men, it's a basic human thing not to do it, directed at everyone. It's easier to advise what not to do because some things are bad universally without exceptions, with good things it's not that simple. Almost everyone agrees rape is bad and you mustn't do it, but there's not such agreement about what to do, I'm trying to think of a thing in life that's undeniably worth doing for everyone and I don't have an idea. Recommendations about what to do and what not to are not two sides of the same coin, no role models will flood you with advice on the former, feminists aren't deficient in this category in comparison too.
    I disagree.

    There are massive overlaps, but there are clearly some personality differences between the genders. And if young men don't get advice that's uniquely suited to their situation from a benign father figure, they'll get it from some Fascist guru on Youtube. At best, they'll get it from their peer group, with all the risks that entails.

    Many people are highly independent and idiosyncratic, don't attach any particular meaning to gender roles, and find this stuff somewhat restrictive and overly reductionist. But many are not. And the kind of person who's receptive to this sort of authoritative communication style -- especially where it concerns the glorification of strength -- is potentially the kind of person willing to join a Fascist movement.


    Feminists rising awareness of how abuse is harmful isn't shaping a role for men, it's a basic human thing not to do it, directed at everyone.
    Of course it's a perfectly sensible thing to raise awareness about. But when it's the only message that you're exposed to, it tacitly becomes the only role that you're expected to play.
    Last edited by xerxe; 03-04-2021 at 10:24 PM.

  28. #68
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,875
    Mentioned
    167 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    What do feminists offer as the role for men in society? Mainly what not to do: don't abuse women, don't rape, etc. The reduction of domestic violence and rape are an unambiguous good. But, on their own, these are orders and regulations: a series of formulaic negative restrictions, not a charismatic, positive vision for how to be a man in modern society. Only another, older male role model can give you that.
    I believe you were talking about JP and how he often acts as a role model for men who listen to him, but I think there is actually a point to be made about how such role models/mentors are often lacking for many men. Yes, feminism mainly gives men a vision of themselves concerning what not to do. It is essentially a negative vision, and only a mentor can serve as a positive one (I use negative and positive not in the sense of bad and good, but in the sense of how one should/could act vs how one should not act).
    What good is a book that does not even transport us beyond all books?

    ~Nietzsche

  29. #69
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,826
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    I believe you were talking about JP and how he often acts as a role model for men who listen to him, but I think there is actually a point to be made about how such role models/mentors are often lacking for many men. Yes, feminism mainly gives men a vision of themselves concerning what not to do. It is essentially a negative vision, and only a mentor can serve as a positive one (I use negative and positive not in the sense of bad and good, but in the sense of how one should/could act vs how one should not act).
    Yeah, I'm using 'positive' in the same way, to designate an aspirational goal or objective.

    Feminism offers a much needed positive vision for women: the idea that you can be, say, a physicist instead of a baby machine or domestic servant.

  30. #70
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,051
    Mentioned
    297 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    shoutout @qaz00 coz lately all i read from u im like ye preach it! <3

  31. #71

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,776
    Mentioned
    1178 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not electronic devices, but individualistic attitude breaks communications.
    Due to such attitude people have lesser interest to communicate and do lesser efforts to establish closer and more useful communications. They tend to do surface and short relations.
    This egocentric attitude is indoctrinated by mass medias - disorganised people worse protect own interests. While being easier to exist in today society than before as to stay alive in past needed more of direct support from other people.
    Among individualism supporting factors of today culture is sex separated from love. It is described as acceptable to have sex without strong feelings and wish to make a marriage pair, with kids, etc. The culture predisposes to have a marriage where people stay on own, not where they are friends which share as most as possible in the life, not where they value interests of each other same as own, have a task of happiness of each other, and see the use for themselves in such relations more than in personally separated ones.

    Capitalism is based on individualistic ideology. What is done with the culture is a part of it.
    To reduce atomization the society needs collectivistic ideology, where interests of a majority is set above interests of any minorities and individs. Where interests of other human are valued closer to your own interests.

    Natural basis for such can be good families, pairs with good love feelings and friendship relations. People would studed there to love and then could use this for others outside of own families. This would help to establish more friendly, closer and wider communications. Would gave more interest to other peoples needs. Could to improve cooperation abbilities, to reduce inner social war which takes resources and makes a harm. Such society is incompatible with egoistic wishes, which dominate in capitalism.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  32. #72

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,543
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    What do feminists offer as the role for men in society? Mainly what not to do: don't abuse women, don't rape, etc. The reduction of domestic violence and rape are an unambiguous good. But, on their own, these are orders and regulations: a series of formulaic negative restrictions, not a charismatic, positive vision for how to be a man in modern society. Only another, older male role model can give you that.
    The entire point of feminism is to offer ideological protections for women and to correct the gender injustices within the society. But given that feminism is a take from the "feminine" point of view, feminism offers an alternative vision for men and for the society, which goes against the traditional "masculine" gender role. So if you think that this vision is lacking a "charismatic, positive" vision, then it's only because you're viewing it from the "masculine" point of view. If you agree with JP, then it's because you believe that men should be more traditionally masculine, not more feminine. And perhaps that the society should also stay masculine.

  33. #73
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,826
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    The entire point of feminism is to offer ideological protections for women and to correct the gender injustices within the society. But given that feminism is a take from the "feminine" point of view, feminism offers an alternative vision for men and for the society, which goes against the traditional "masculine" gender role. So if you think that this vision is lacking a "charismatic, positive" vision, then it's only because you're viewing it from the "masculine" point of view. If you agree with JP, then it's because you believe that men should be more traditionally masculine, not more feminine. And perhaps that the society should also stay masculine.
    Give me a concrete example of a positive vision for men offered by feminism.

  34. #74

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,543
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Give me a concrete example of a positive vision for men offered by feminism.
    Isn't that what MRA is for?

    Roughly speaking, men are more competitive, and women are more cooperative. Men think hierarchically and women think horizontally. The "positive vision" for men offered by feminism is the idea that men can "step down" from the traditional masculine gender role and the "patriarchal" culture and society. They can be for example more egalitarian and cooperative in relationships and friendships, they can have a more balanced work-life-family balance, they can try to be more empathetic, pro-social, less violent and overly competitive, and so on.

    Of course you could disagree that that is a "positive vision" for men, because you think that men should be more masculine and not less. For me, I find the fear of "declining masculinity" to be somewhat overblown and nonsensical. More cooperation and pro-social behavior can only be a good thing, not bad. I mean there are some positive aspects of masculinity, such as being more independent, and there are some negative aspects of femininity.

    I think that the most disturbing trend is that they've somehow shifted the tide of the argument, and now believe that men are the "victims" or being "left out". I think that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the fear of being "replaced" or "erased", that women will somehow "take over" them, in the same way that supremacists fear that they'll be "replaced" by other races and immigrants.

    If women are doing somewhat better than men in this modern society, because it favors social intelligence and not brute strength, and women are performing better than men on education on average, then honestly I don't know what to say. What is the positive vision for men, especially those that are struggling to "keep up" with women? Should they try to learn to be more like women, or should they keep on insisting their "masculinity"? I find it to be a hopeless case to lose.

    The "traditional" masculine viewpoint is that men are the breadwinners, women stay at home, the "strict father figure" teach their children to be independent and how to survive in this world, while he expends most of his energy into work. The "feminine" viewpoint is more balanced, where both genders do their fair share of both domestic and regular work, while they expend all their energy equally into all aspects of work, life, family and relationships.

    The gender stereotype of how men think is that they think things linearly, and women think laterally, and that seems to be expressed in how they tend to organize their lives. And since the current society do not streamline how women tend to manage their lives, many women in modern society seem to struggle to juggle career, family, relationships, life, all at once. While men are confused and disorientated, because they're used to only doing one thing at a time.

  35. #75
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    1,858
    Mentioned
    163 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    I agree with you on principle, but gender roles are just a part of human society. It's like in our unconscious. There is a price to everyone acting like they want, and that's the atomisation that is the topic of this thread. In an atomised society, no one is allowed to expect anything from someone, so everyone has to do things by himself or negociate like crazy which dimishes productivity but also trust in others and makes relationships more difficult. It's harder to become a team. It's like soccer, if everyone wants to be a goalie, you can't play!
    What you said here spawned a few thoughts. I don't think this is actually the case. We don't really live in a culture (it doesn't matter where you live; culture all around the world is becoming the same) where people do what they want. Not at all. I think it's generally acknowledged that everyone is depressed and stressed and increasingly obese, and people are often very medicated if they can afford to be. I think this is plenty of proof that people don't have access to what they really want.

    I've noticed something else. I've seen lots of e-people talk about all sorts of licentiousness they engage in, particularly sexually -- polyamory, wife swapping, BDSM, and so on. But almost invariably these people lead incredibly boring lives, and if they even do what they claim to be doing it's something that happens once or twice a month. And you also get the impression that these sorts of encounters are probably pretty awkward; these aren't really people that seem capable of having fun or feeling genuinely excited.

    There are two main problems I see. Firstly, I think people don't really know what they want to begin with. Even the best of us aren't self-aware more than half the time, and I've increasingly become more sure in a belief that well over half of the human race is pretty much entirely unreflective. Consequently they don't really think about what they want and mostly just parrot whatever ideas are floating in the collective consciousness at the time that sound good. This isn't the only example; since gender roles are being talked about, I'll go on a brief tangent.

    There's a stereotype of women saying they want caring, sensitive guys, which, as every man eventually comes to realize, is complete bullshit. We all know men who project an image of being caring and sensitive, and, guess what, they never have a serious girlfriend throughout their youth and early 20s -- if they marry, it's in their 30s or 40s to some unbearable harpy who takes advantage of this poor sap's kindness (and perhaps desperation at that point). Certainly no normal woman will ever take the initiative and hit on such a man herself -- but an impulsive, violent, and aggressive criminal often has multiple women throwing themselves at his feet, and despite being either sociopathically violent or permanently drugged up these women will all claim they're attracted to the "sweet" man on the inside. (I should make a quick note that women are usually attracted by charisma and humor, but this isn't really indicative of any moral qualities; only good social skills and confidence.) Anyway, this being said, you do see men who really are nice people have decent wives and partners. But they have to project a fairly blunt or tough persona to attract them, and give an impression that he prioritizes himself first; women are repulsed if men show too much interest in them. Men have to learn to be this way when they're around women. Even women who men aren't interested in don't respect "nice" guys on a fundamental level, and so men have to learn to hide their feelings around them. Usually it's only in a long, stable marital or familial relationship that this barrier can be overcome.

    But this whole dynamic is usually unconscious. Despite being the main cause of this, women are the very ones leading the charge that men ought to be more emotional, express themselves more, and so on. Men for their part aren't usually able to articulate well why they can't easily open up to women, and why this process is so much easier with other men. And so a narrative emerges: men are unfeeling brutes; men who are unfeeling brutes are disgusting (Becase 1. what sort of person is able to admit to herself that she's attracted to sociopathy? A more honest person than most people. 2. The fantasy of having a nice and caring husband sounds a whole lot better than one who'd sell you for a day's worth of drugs.) and won't find partners; men ought to open up more, especially to women, to be sexually successful. In reality a man does better with women the better he seems to reverse this message, and the confusion this engenders frustration in a lot of men and women both.

    Returning to my original point, people's idea of what they want is often clearly not what they actually would like; i.e. what would make them happy. And most people are not capable of independently determining what that might be for themselves. Social structures help reduce the need to do this by providing clear roles people can fill and paths they can take which generally create a sense of fulfillment. But as everyone acknowledges, these social roles have been degenerating. The church is gone (for good and for bad) for the most part, and most middle-class clubs and societies that grew up in the 20th century are also dwindling. People are just floundering. The problem isn't that too many people are just doing whatever they like; it's that they don't know what they'd like to begin with. Stable social institutions would help, but the problem is that they don't exist rather than that they're just circumvented.

    Secondly, what's typically provided humans a lot of happiness has become a lot harder to obtain because of modernity. A large part of that is raising a family. There was a time when the "family values" rhetoric employed by conservatives in the States actually struck a chord with a lot of people. Now most people don't seem able to understand where that impulse came from (and it makes this sort of rhetoric seem hollow). To the extent that people even had two parents growing up, those parents were probably absent at work much of the time and they spent more time at school than around their own parents. And now kids are being raised by fucking ipads. And of course the cause is obvious; having kids is really expensive, so most people don't, and those who do just don't have the time or resources to properly invest in them. Another component of happiness that's missing is community and feeling yourself a meaningful contributor to it, and again it's obvious why that is; people move too much and can't really set down roots.

    I don't think that men should have a particular role in society, however some roles in society have to 'be filled' independently of one's gender for society to function correctly. These archetypal roles that lie in our unconscious will always come up. A child needs a father figure; whether this father figure is a woman or a man or an old japanese neighbour doesn't matter, but if the child has no one on which to unconsciously defer this 'responsabilizing authority', they won't socialize correctly, meaning they will be irresponsible/entitled/lazy or afraid of life....
    I'm not sure that these archetypes are necessary or that they arise out of some collective unconscious rather than just the fact that all humans tend to undergo similar sorts of experiences in their formative years, but regardless I think their realization is fairly unimportant if someone can be fulfilled in other ways. Happy people don't suddenly snap or suddenly start ranting about feminine chaos dragons, even if they never had a mother or similar female figures in their lives.

    The problem with extreme feminism is that those women take up a position in society; it's not about freedom from gender stereotypes at all. They see themselves as victims and in this little theater play, men then turn into persecuters that have to be castrated in a way or another. Men are not seen for what they are, but for what a minority of men do/structural problems and this viewpoint serves to justify feminists venting their frustation and aggresion at every man they meet. I don't blame feminists, since patriarchy has been oppressing women for a long time, but it would be better for everyone if things were adressed from a viewpoints of facts and not positions.
    Western culture seems to be becoming, or has already become, a victim culture, and the center of this seems to be the US. It's not only women or feminists who try to act the victim; identity politics is being used cynically everywhere. Look at how Elizabeth Warren called black transsexual women the "backbone of democracy." Obviously a ridiculous statement but it was well-received by singnificant numbers of people because it resonated with their worldview: the more oppression points you can score, the better claim you have to be given special attention. Come to think of it, Warren claiming to be Native American is a good example of this phenomenon.

    What a ramble this has become. Anyway, if anyone is still reading by this point I'm open to feedback.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 03-07-2021 at 09:14 AM.

  36. #76
    lkdhf qkb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Inferno 13th floor
    TIM
    IEE-Ne5w4/1w9/2 SPSX
    Posts
    550
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    What you said here spawned a few thoughts. I don't think this is actually the case. We don't really live in a culture (it doesn't matter where you live; culture all around the world is becoming the same) where people do what they want. Not at all. I think it's generally acknowledged that everyone is depressed and stressed and increasingly obese, and people are often very medicated if they can afford to be. I think this is plenty of proof that people don't have access to what they really want.

    Returning to my original point, people's idea of what they want is often clearly not what they actually would like; i.e. what would make them happy. And most people are not capable of independently determining what that might be for themselves. Social structures help reduce the need to do this by providing clear roles people can fill and paths they can take which generally create a sense of fulfillment. But as everyone acknowledges, these social roles have been degenerating. The church is gone (for good and for bad) for the most part, and most middle-class clubs and societies that grew up in the 20th century are also dwindling. People are just floundering. The problem isn't that too many people are just doing whatever they like; it's that they don't know what they'd like to begin with. Stable social institutions would help, but the problem is that they don't exist rather than that they're just circumvented.
    Makes sense. You are right that social roles are very reassuring and give people a sense of achievement and purpose that is severely lacking these days. Yet this identification with one's role is only bringing us further away from what we truly want and who we are. Bad remedy to a real sickness.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    There are two main problems I see. Firstly, I think people don't really know what they want to begin with. Even the best of us aren't self-aware more than half the time, and I've increasingly become more sure in a belief that well over half of the human race is pretty much entirely unreflective. Consequently they don't really think about what they want and mostly just parrot whatever ideas are floating in the collective consciousness at the time that sound good. This isn't the only example; since gender roles are being talked about, I'll go on a brief tangent.Secondly, what's typically provided humans a lot of happiness has become a lot harder to obtain because of modernity. A large part of that is raising a family. There was a time when the "family values" rhetoric employed by conservatives in the States actually struck a chord with a lot of people. Now most people don't seem able to understand where that impulse came from (and it makes this sort of rhetoric seem hollow). To the extent that people even had two parents growing up, those parents were probably absent at work much of the time and they spent more time at school than around their own parents. And now kids are being raised by fucking ipads. And of course the cause is obvious; having kids is really expensive, so most people don't, and those who do just don't have the time or resources to properly invest in them. Another component of happiness that's missing is community and feeling yourself a meaningful contributor to it, and again it's obvious why that is; people move too much and can't really set down roots.
    Social order is needed, but how can we make it respectful of people differences and not some oppressing gender roles like in the 50ies? In contrast to the past, I believe a "negociated social order" that strickes a balance between freedom and purposeful duty could be the best solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    I'm not sure that these archetypes are necessary or that they arise out of some collective unconscious rather than just the fact that all humans tend to undergo similar sorts of experiences in their formative years, but regardless I think their realization is fairly unimportant if someone can be fulfilled in other ways. Happy people don't suddenly snap or suddenly start ranting about feminine chaos dragons, even if they never had a mother or similar female figures in their lives.
    Then we slightly diagree; I think it's both about the unconscious and the experiences we go through. I believe that parental figures play a central role in 'socializing' a kids libido, since sexual impulses are innate and need to find a healthy way of expression. There has been some research about the link between father absence and the dating behaviour of daughters for example. This ties nicely into your next point:

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    There's a stereotype of women saying they want caring, sensitive guys, which, as every man eventually comes to realize, is complete bullshit. We all know men who project an image of being caring and sensitive, and, guess what, they never have a serious girlfriend throughout their youth and early 20s -- if they marry, it's in their 30s or 40s to some unbearable harpy who takes advantage of this poor sap's kindness (and perhaps desperation at that point). Certainly no normal woman will ever take the initiative and hit on such a man herself -- but an impulsive, violent, and aggressive criminal often has multiple women throwing themselves at his feet, and despite being either sociopathically violent or permanently drugged up these women will all claim they're attracted to the "sweet" man on the inside. (I should make a quick note that women are usually attracted by charisma and humor, but this isn't really indicative of any moral qualities; only good social skills and confidence.) Anyway, this being said, you do see men who really are nice people have decent wives and partners. But they have to project a fairly blunt or tough persona to attract them, and give an impression that he prioritizes himself first; women are repulsed if men show too much interest in them. Men have to learn to be this way when they're around women. Even women who men aren't interested in don't respect "nice" guys on a fundamental level, and so men have to learn to hide their feelings around them. Usually it's only in a long, stable marital or familial relationship that this barrier can be overcome.

    But this whole dynamic is usually unconscious. Despite being the main cause of this, women are the very ones leading the charge that men ought to be more emotional, express themselves more, and so on. Men for their part aren't usually able to articulate well why they can't easily open up to women, and why this process is so much easier with other men. And so a narrative emerges: men are unfeeling brutes; men who are unfeeling brutes are disgusting (Becase 1. what sort of person is able to admit to herself that she's attracted to sociopathy? A more honest person than most people. 2. The fantasy of having a nice and caring husband sounds a whole lot better than one who'd sell you for a day's worth of drugs.) and won't find partners; men ought to open up more, especially to women, to be sexually successful. In reality a man does better with women the better he seems to reverse this message, and the confusion this engenders frustration in a lot of men and women both.
    From the wikipedia article "Father absence":

    Commonly agreed across authors within literature on Fatherhood is the idea that “A girl’s relationship with her father serves as the model for all her relationships with men in her life, romantic and otherwise…” [25] Many studies conducted produce the same result: that the absence of a father in a daughters life leads to increased promiscuity and sexualized activity. Most Famous being Ellis et al. study “Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?”


    [...]

    A lot of women who grew up fatherless seem to believe that they are “unworthy” of male attention, creating a self fulfilled prophecy where they believe they are unworthy and thus only accept and attract love from men who fulfill their self thoughts of unworthiness about themselves.
    Did you know that between 20 and 30 percent of today's youth grows up with only one parent?

    That could be a nice way to get an psychanalytic insight into the ins and outs of today's dating culture. Could the explanation to women shunning "nice guys" be that they think they don't deserve love unless they "save" a hopeless case? Who will finally tell them "thanks I couldn't have made it without you!" ?


    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Western culture seems to be becoming, or has already become, a victim culture, and the center of this seems to be the US. It's not only women or feminists who try to act the victim; identity politics is being used cynically everywhere. Look at how Elizabeth Warren called black transsexual women the "backbone of democracy." Obviously a ridiculous statement but it was well-received by singnificant numbers of people because it resonated with their worldview: the more oppression points you can score, the better claim you have to be given special attention. Come to think of it, Warren claiming to be Native American is a good example of this phenomenon.
    Agreed.
    I rarely feel alone. I rarely talk to anyone, yet in my head i have the most amazing, the most fantastic discussions with the people in my life. In real life, what most people talk about is several orders of magnitude lesser than their inner experiences. Most people never reveal the singularity of their subjective experience.
    Maybe I should learn to explore other people's consciousness. Maybe I should aim for a real space between me and others. Instead of cultivating monologues and fantasies. It's hard, but the alternative to this seems to be madness. ~ lkdhf qkb

    Life is soup. I'm fork


  37. #77
    Alive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    1,446
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    There are two main problems I see. Firstly, I think people don't really know what they want to begin with. Even the best of us aren't self-aware more than half the time, and I've increasingly become more sure in a belief that well over half of the human race is pretty much entirely unreflective. Consequently they don't really think about what they want and mostly just parrot whatever ideas are floating in the collective consciousness at the time that sound good. This isn't the only example; since gender roles are being talked about, I'll go on a brief tangent.

    There's a stereotype of women saying they want caring, sensitive guys, which, as every man eventually comes to realize, is complete bullshit. We all know men who project an image of being caring and sensitive, and, guess what, they never have a serious girlfriend throughout their youth and early 20s -- if they marry, it's in their 30s or 40s to some unbearable harpy who takes advantage of this poor sap's kindness (and perhaps desperation at that point). Certainly no normal woman will ever take the initiative and hit on such a man herself -- but an impulsive, violent, and aggressive criminal often has multiple women throwing themselves at his feet, and despite being either sociopathically violent or permanently drugged up these women will all claim they're attracted to the "sweet" man on the inside. (I should make a quick note that women are usually attracted by charisma and humor, but this isn't really indicative of any moral qualities; only good social skills and confidence.) Anyway, this being said, you do see men who really are nice people have decent wives and partners. But they have to project a fairly blunt or tough persona to attract them, and give an impression that he prioritizes himself first; women are repulsed if men show too much interest in them. Men have to learn to be this way when they're around women. Even women who men aren't interested in don't respect "nice" guys on a fundamental level, and so men have to learn to hide their feelings around them. Usually it's only in a long, stable marital or familial relationship that this barrier can be overcome.
    look at gulenko's DCNH subtypes. the overwhelming majority of women are normalising subtypes and their subtype dual is a dominant subtype: authoritarian, blunt, a leader, pursues goals in a direct way, not fazed by obstacles. if I remember correctly, studies have shown that women are experiencing more negative emotions than men. they need a strong shoulder that they can rely on. normalising men need a dominant subtype, too, but from a biological perspective, you will rarely find dominant women. I think "nice guys" are N and H subtypes, especially if they have an ethical type.

  38. #78
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,875
    Mentioned
    167 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post


    There's a stereotype of women saying they want caring, sensitive guys, which, as every man eventually comes to realize, is complete bullshit. We all know men who project an image of being caring and sensitive, and, guess what, they never have a serious girlfriend throughout their youth and early 20s -- if they marry, it's in their 30s or 40s to some unbearable harpy who takes advantage of this poor sap's kindness (and perhaps desperation at that point). Certainly no normal woman will ever take the initiative and hit on such a man herself -- but an impulsive, violent, and aggressive criminal often has multiple women throwing themselves at his feet, and despite being either sociopathically violent or permanently drugged up these women will all claim they're attracted to the "sweet" man on the inside. (I should make a quick note that women are usually attracted by charisma and humor, but this isn't really indicative of any moral qualities; only good social skills and confidence.) Anyway, this being said, you do see men who really are nice people have decent wives and partners. But they have to project a fairly blunt or tough persona to attract them, and give an impression that he prioritizes himself first; women are repulsed if men show too much interest in them. Men have to learn to be this way when they're around women. Even women who men aren't interested in don't respect "nice" guys on a fundamental level, and so men have to learn to hide their feelings around them. Usually it's only in a long, stable marital or familial relationship that this barrier can be overcome.

    But this whole dynamic is usually unconscious. Despite being the main cause of this, women are the very ones leading the charge that men ought to be more emotional, express themselves more, and so on. Men for their part aren't usually able to articulate well why they can't easily open up to women, and why this process is so much easier with other men. And so a narrative emerges: men are unfeeling brutes; men who are unfeeling brutes are disgusting (Becase 1. what sort of person is able to admit to herself that she's attracted to sociopathy? A more honest person than most people. 2. The fantasy of having a nice and caring husband sounds a whole lot better than one who'd sell you for a day's worth of drugs.) and won't find partners; men ought to open up more, especially to women, to be sexually successful. In reality a man does better with women the better he seems to reverse this message, and the confusion this engenders frustration in a lot of men and women both.
    I think many women want men who project an image of confidence, but not so much of being some fucked up criminal. Those guys (fucked up criminals) do seem to attract women though, but not necessarily very interesting ones - the women (or should I say girls) they attract are usually young, from broken homes, into drugs and prostitiution themselves. Not exactly an enviable life I would say.

    I agree that there is a contradiction in what women often say they want when it comes to saying they want a man opening up emotionally and actually going for guys who do that in reality, I think this has alot to do with, as you say, people not knowing themselves or what they want (even from a purely biological perspective) and instead just parroting whatever trends happen to go on at the time. "Opening up emotionally" is rarely pleasant for others, especially for strangers and I don't think it is advisable for either men or women to do that on a say, a first date. But I can see it being important in later stages of a relationship.

    The point is though, I don't think most women go for guys who project an image of criminality, perhaps on an purely instinctive level this raises some desires in women because of the "savage brute" archetype this evokes, just like men may find themselves attracted to strippers or pornstars because parts of themselves are attracted to what those women represent (ie availability of sex), while rarely ever dating such women in reality. I think it's more about confidence, and yes there are emotionally sensitive guys who find stable girlfriends and live out succesful relationships, I think the reason why many of these guys struggle is because they try to emulate an image which doesn't suit them (ie the insensitive type) while not realizing they can be confident while being themselves, it's just that society provides us with few examples (through media) of such men in confident roles. The emotionally sensitive and kind guys who end up in succesful relationships are usually self-confident, too, but they also accept this as their nature, which in turn makes them appear more confident.

    That being said, I agree with your main points, I just wanted to add that.
    What good is a book that does not even transport us beyond all books?

    ~Nietzsche

  39. #79
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,826
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Isn't that what MRA is for?

    Roughly speaking, men are more competitive, and women are more cooperative. Men think hierarchically and women think horizontally. The "positive vision" for men offered by feminism is the idea that men can "step down" from the traditional masculine gender role and the "patriarchal" culture and society. They can be for example more egalitarian and cooperative in relationships and friendships, they can have a more balanced work-life-family balance, they can try to be more empathetic, pro-social, less violent and overly competitive, and so on.

    Of course you could disagree that that is a "positive vision" for men, because you think that men should be more masculine and not less. For me, I find the fear of "declining masculinity" to be somewhat overblown and nonsensical. More cooperation and pro-social behavior can only be a good thing, not bad. I mean there are some positive aspects of masculinity, such as being more independent, and there are some negative aspects of femininity.

    I think that the most disturbing trend is that they've somehow shifted the tide of the argument, and now believe that men are the "victims" or being "left out". I think that this is a knee-jerk reaction to the fear of being "replaced" or "erased", that women will somehow "take over" them, in the same way that supremacists fear that they'll be "replaced" by other races and immigrants.

    If women are doing somewhat better than men in this modern society, because it favors social intelligence and not brute strength, and women are performing better than men on education on average, then honestly I don't know what to say. What is the positive vision for men, especially those that are struggling to "keep up" with women? Should they try to learn to be more like women, or should they keep on insisting their "masculinity"? I find it to be a hopeless case to lose.

    The "traditional" masculine viewpoint is that men are the breadwinners, women stay at home, the "strict father figure" teach their children to be independent and how to survive in this world, while he expends most of his energy into work. The "feminine" viewpoint is more balanced, where both genders do their fair share of both domestic and regular work, while they expend all their energy equally into all aspects of work, life, family and relationships.

    The gender stereotype of how men think is that they think things linearly, and women think laterally, and that seems to be expressed in how they tend to organize their lives. And since the current society do not streamline how women tend to manage their lives, many women in modern society seem to struggle to juggle career, family, relationships, life, all at once. While men are confused and disorientated, because they're used to only doing one thing at a time.

    For clarity's sake, what I meant by 'positive vision' is a vision that promotes movement or transformation, as opposed to a 'negative vision', which promotes restrictions on behaviour or otherwise. A positive vision can be "good" or "bad", and history is replete with examples of both. A negative vision can also be good or bad. Traffic laws are an example of a negative vision that's good -- nobody buys a car because they're eager to obey traffic traffic laws, but traffic laws are a good thing that make sense. Likewise, anti-rape laws promote a negative vision that's unequivocally and unambiguously good.

    What you wrote about WRT cooperation and egalitarianism is certainly worthwhile, and I'd tend to agree with the egalitarian thrust of the women's liberation movement. So, what's the issue? What you're describing is a destination, not a process of self-development. Men need to acquire independence and agency, and a lot of their self-worth rides on feeling strong and/or competent. Feminism can't help with that because it's just a moral code -- a negative vision that codifies and oversees interpersonal relationships.
    Last edited by xerxe; 03-07-2021 at 06:50 PM.

  40. #80
    Ксеркс, царь царей xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    6,826
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Whats more, feminism is perceived as henpecking because feminists don't understand men and how to motivate them.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •