Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 77 of 77

Thread: What's the solution to atomization?

  1. #41
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 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 :]

  2. #42
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,229
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

  3. #43
    Hot Scalding Gayser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The evolved form of Warm Soapy Water
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    14,902
    Mentioned
    661 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 Hot Scalding Gayser; 03-03-2021 at 03:41 AM.

  4. #44
    Haikus SGF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ┌П┐(ಠ_ಠ)
    TIM
    LSI-H™
    Posts
    2,165
    Mentioned
    181 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.

  5. #45
    Haikus SGF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ┌П┐(ಠ_ಠ)
    TIM
    LSI-H™
    Posts
    2,165
    Mentioned
    181 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.

  6. #46
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 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.

  7. #47
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    support your local veggies!

  8. #48
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 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.

  9. #49
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 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.

  10. #50
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 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.

  11. #51
    Haikus SGF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ┌П┐(ಠ_ಠ)
    TIM
    LSI-H™
    Posts
    2,165
    Mentioned
    181 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.
    Last edited by SGF; 03-04-2021 at 11:26 AM.

  12. #52
    it's all in the eyes... qaz00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    undercurrents
    TIM
    HN-SLI-Te
    Posts
    773
    Mentioned
    32 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.

  13. #53
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 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 xerx; 03-04-2021 at 10:24 PM.

  14. #54
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 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).


  15. #55
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 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.

  16. #56
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

  17. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 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.

  18. #58

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    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.

  19. #59
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 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.

  20. #60

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    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.

  21. #61
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 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.

  22. #62
    Professional IEI Identifier on a peaceful hiatus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    LII-C
    Posts
    4,366
    Mentioned
    259 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.
    my ideas about socionics:

    https://soziotypen.de/thoughts-on-socionics/

    the section will be updated ever other month or so.

    this is a VI thread with IEI examples

    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-(IEI-edition)

    and this is a thread with EIE examples

    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...s-EIE-examples

  23. #63
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 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.


  24. #64
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 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 xerx; 03-07-2021 at 06:50 PM.

  25. #65
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 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.

  26. #66
    Haikus SGF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ┌П┐(ಠ_ಠ)
    TIM
    LSI-H™
    Posts
    2,165
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Whats more, feminism is perceived as henpecking because feminists don't understand men and how to motivate them.
    To be fair. I think MGTOW is equally bad and seems to urge men to "go their own way" and sterilize themselves. Literally telling guys to walk into a dead-end alley and to give into materialistic hedonism. Relations between the sexes are very screwed up.

  27. #67
    Rusal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    1,064
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    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.
    Peterson made it big, but he is not the first – the likes of Christina Hoff Summers probably came first.

    ‘Education tailored for males’; ‘role models’, doesn’t stop there; from the idea of a male psyche you’ll find proponents project for male children or non-academic males in general the same dispensations, reediting boys will be boys. From special competitive environments for young boys because they feel more encouraged to learn that way from not being bad woman pestering your husband when he’s watching football because men bond with his peers through collective sports or whatever. Now feminism doesn’t only have to help and save women but also think of men, but do it in a way that goes well with masculinity and panders to how special men think they are otherwise they’ll just hate women. And as I say this I’m completely aware of the victim mentality that seems to have taken over current politics and insular thinking in social activism organizations.
    Sicuramente cercherai il significato di questo.

  28. #68
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunfingers View Post
    To be fair. I think MGTOW is equally bad and seems to urge men to "go their own way" and sterilize themselves. Literally telling guys to walk into a dead-end alley and to give into materialistic hedonism. Relations between the sexes are very screwed up.
    Yeah, MGTOW seems mostly like a dead end. Maybe that many people really are better suited to being monks, though.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rusal View Post
    Peterson made it big, but he is not the first – the likes of Christina Hoff Summers probably came first.

    ‘Education tailored for males’; ‘role models’, doesn’t stop there; from the idea of a male psyche you’ll find proponents project for male children or non-academic males in general the same dispensations, reediting boys will be boys. From special competitive environments for young boys because they feel more encouraged to learn that way from not being bad woman pestering your husband when he’s watching football because men bond with his peers through collective sports or whatever. Now feminism doesn’t only have to help and save women but also think of men, but do it in a way that goes well with masculinity and panders to how special men think they are otherwise they’ll just hate women. And as I say this I’m completely aware of the victim mentality that seems to have taken over current politics and insular thinking in social activism organizations.
    Yeah, more focus on trades (this isn't just a funding issue, there's a weird social stigma against going into trades versus a traditional four year university), return of industrial jobs, more male teachers in schools, etc., ought to take care of some of the problem.

  29. #69
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by one View Post
    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.
    Yeah, the alternative to divorce sounds much worse. But, children really do need both parents.

    One solution would be to force the ex-couple to live close to each other. Preplanning of that magnitude would no doubt require a stupendous amount of city zoning / economic engineering, however.

  30. #70
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Yeah, the alternative to divorce sounds much worse. But, children really do need both parents.

    One solution would be to force the ex-couple to live close to each other. Preplanning of that magnitude would no doubt require a stupendous amount of city zoning / economic engineering, however.
    Maybe people’s understanding of marriage should change. I think many people expect to find their soulmate and leave if there are problems rather than understand it as a commitment. So if problems come up they find it less effort to just leave rather than do whatever they can to repair the relationship.

  31. #71
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    We are too simple for this sh#t. That's the root. People make it too complicated. Layers upon layers. The wealth gap between absolute top and others reflects our herd nature. When your farm grows too big it creates all sorts of management problems. Capability to understand others outside of own bubble gets twisted. Politicians have no idea what they do if they are grown to become ones.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  32. #72
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Maybe people’s understanding of marriage should change. I think many people expect to find their soulmate and leave if there are problems rather than understand it as a commitment. So if problems come up they find it less effort to just leave rather than do whatever they can to repair the relationship.
    Maybe, I don't know. If religious folks capable of sustaining large families inherit the world, I guess that's one way.

  33. #73
    Haikus SGF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ┌П┐(ಠ_ಠ)
    TIM
    LSI-H™
    Posts
    2,165
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Maybe, I don't know. If religious folks capable of sustaining large families inherit the world, I guess that's one way.
    The amish population doubles every 20 years: http://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies...-profile-2020/

  34. #74
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    5,701
    Mentioned
    524 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunfingers View Post
    The amish population doubles every 20 years: http://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies...-profile-2020/
    https://youtu.be/yK3oWQfb_2M

  35. #75
    Haikus SGF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ┌П┐(ಠ_ಠ)
    TIM
    LSI-H™
    Posts
    2,165
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    There are a lot of positive examples of masculinity out there. It's just that a fringe of men(well echoed on the other side by extreme feminists) want the world to cater to their insecurities exclusively.

    Teaching your children




    Helping weak people





    Hanging with the bros once you actually achieved something





    Defying danger to do your duty



    wow comrade.. you are so damn right!

  36. #76
    Haikus SGF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ┌П┐(ಠ_ಠ)
    TIM
    LSI-H™
    Posts
    2,165
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lkdhf qkb View Post
    Thanks my lovely comrade, you and me, we are all one!

    I don't know if that's your way of joking or just misundertanding or rather a manipulation tactic paving the way to my ideological submission to your BS americanism by putting your words in my mouth. I never said that the examples I provide are antithetical with political promulgation whether from Putin or any other politician.


    I'm having fun e_e y so serious?
    Last edited by SGF; 03-09-2021 at 12:26 PM.

  37. #77
    AWellArmedCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    TIM
    ENFp-C
    Posts
    1,133
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You mention the problem of not having two role models, but why stop there? For so much of human history kids were raised by whole extended families or clans even. I think the real issue today is the absence of that sort of extended community in people's day-to-day lives so we seek it out online. This isn't so much of a problem in religious communities. In the rural US the Christian conservatives are still doing fine getting married, having kids, and supporting each other financially. The church to this day provides a lot of people with this sort of community. I'm not advocating for Christian conservatism by any means, but there's something to be said for how they manage to maintain a sense of community in the modern day. For the rest of us we're kind of at a loss of where to turn I think. Some catalyst is needed for people to organize a community around, but I'm not sure what a good catalyst might be if not religion
    “Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
    — James Russell Lowell
    猫が生き甲斐

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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