Did you have an unpleasant encounter with a bin in childhood? Did its cavernous dark interior frighten you? Why did you feel the need to illustrate a thrusting arrow moving towards the bin?
Why are more young men than older seeing feminism as a bad thing?
- Thread starter Cloo
- Start date
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
I'm only going on what I've read online, so take that with whatever limitations that it comes with, but my impression has been that a lot of (cis?) men are either crap at foreplay or even outright disdain it. So I'm puzzled by the notion that it needs to go in the bin, rather than the idea that men should be more mindful of their partner's pleasure and get better at it.
Humberto
Well-Known Member
I take it as 'it's not some lead up to some main event' in some kind of set piece. It's a good (real) shout. Agree though that it is the received wisdom which is false.
hitmouse
so defeated, thinks it's funny
Katherine Angel also has a lot to say about Freud. (I promise I am a real poster and not just posting from a Verso troll farm or something.)
Dystopiary
putting up a hook to hang my hopes upon
It's the word itself that some of us take issue with, the implication being that only PIV sex can be - as Humberto says - "the main event."
Cat Fan
Cats and stats
I saw an interesting article in the Evening Standard which was saying how the rise of online dating basically means that a large number of men end up competing for a small number of women.
Basically saying that women only swipe right 10-15% of the time on average, so basically a lot more selective than the average man who swipes right 60% of the time, and this plays to the advantage of a small proportion of men who tick all the right boxes (photogenic, tall, high social status).
But obviously these men either get snapped up quickly or are not interested in a relationship, so you end up with most women and most men being unhappy and unfulfilled long term.
Average men are unhappy because women don't pick them and average women because the men they pick end up being mostly "scumbags"
I think it is so different compared to the old days, where you have a barn dance and people could just pair off
The algorithm isn't interested in showing people a realistic dating option, even though the technology is there. it wants people to stay on the app so it creates an unrealistic (for the 90%) fantasy
Basically saying that women only swipe right 10-15% of the time on average, so basically a lot more selective than the average man who swipes right 60% of the time, and this plays to the advantage of a small proportion of men who tick all the right boxes (photogenic, tall, high social status).
But obviously these men either get snapped up quickly or are not interested in a relationship, so you end up with most women and most men being unhappy and unfulfilled long term.
Average men are unhappy because women don't pick them and average women because the men they pick end up being mostly "scumbags"
I think it is so different compared to the old days, where you have a barn dance and people could just pair off
The algorithm isn't interested in showing people a realistic dating option, even though the technology is there. it wants people to stay on the app so it creates an unrealistic (for the 90%) fantasy
abe11825
Like to take a cement fix
People have gotten too used to "swiping" on profiles they see, and from what I've learned, it's based on photos (or in the example above re: height [looks] or social status). Does everyone really spend time reading the bulk of the profile, or are they only selecting that person based on the ability to have a one off with each other (based on atractiveness)?
You can be a scumbag or cold hearted, but overall, how often are the fast swipers really looking for solid relationships? Sure, the genders complain about each other, but in the handful that won't work out, it's because they had low expectations to begin with. Neither party aimed high enough to make the relationship work. Potentially.
All social network algorithms aren't meant to be perfectly suited for all people. The more you look at one set of items, the more the web page will show you similar stuff. So if you are constantly finding someone attractive based on a picture, the app will show you profiles that look like the ones you're saying yes too. Which then leaves the group out that are searching for something more meaningful and long term. Just because you swipe left on an ugly duckling photo, doesn't mean that person isn't beautiful in other ways.
The apps are double edge swords.
Cloo
Approved by toads
I think my kids' generation isn't going to bother with dating apps, they seem to be a total washout. I've heard a lot of people find they just chat and never meet, or meet once or twice and it fades off - there's this illusion of choice that keeps people feeling 'Yeah, it was good but maybe someone else will be better' and nothing ever goes anywhere because what if something better is round the corner?
abe11825
Like to take a cement fix
Something similar happened to me on a dating site with a guy I ended up meeting (in person, twice).
After messaging each other on the dating website, we started messaging (of all outside sources) on AIM and decided to meet. He came round to my house, we had something light to eat and spent a couple hours walking around the woods near where I lived. Just having a conversation and taking a walk, since he mentioned he liked going out in nature. Once he left, we talked online for another week or so before I went to his place, which turned out to be quite the adventure. I spent close to 9 hours with him that day and saw how he lived "in his own surroundings". Swell guy, but he had been a big boy (we're talking 36 stone at his heaviest) and when I met him, he was down to 12 stone, give or take. Amazing for him, but he still ate like he was heavy.
Spending time with him and watching him eat all day, made me so nauseous, that I didn't know if I could / should continue seeing him. I felt so sick and worried what "any future" may hold with us, since I was trying to stick to a diet myself. I didn't want to try to chance anything nor did I want to see what his weekly grocery bill was, just for himself. It scared me in a way. Plus, every time we chatted online, it would be an empty chat, as he would tell me he's "sitting around smoking a bowl" and not really be into the conversation. I don't mind if people smoke - I'm not going to tell them to stop, as that would be hypocritical of me since I've had my fair share of various plants rolled in paper. Sharing is caring. So between the food bill and the pot bill, I was intrigued (just to stand outside of the situation and watch what would happen), but I also was thinking "this ain't my thing". Especially since we had more lengthy conversations early in our chatting than we did after I had gone to his place and he got more comfortable with me to say he smokes a couple bowls nightly.
Needless to say, whatever we were doing and where ever we were going to go, faded out after a month or so of just online chatting.
I do have to say, the guy was very energetic in early conversations, smart, funny. Traveled a lot (and didn't mind doing adventuring) and knew so many things about baseball and American stadiums. He would have been a great friend to have, had we met at a pub or something and not on a dating site. But like I said, the whole all day eating thing just turned me the wrong way and I do feel sorry about that since he couldn't help it. I understand the problems and I can't be mad at him for it. It was just not meant to be between us.
BigMoaner
We will all go together
Yeh surely dating apps have a vested interest in keeping us all single?
abe11825
Like to take a cement fix
Attached is an article that was in the local paper today. I'm sure it's available online somewhere, as it might have been published nationally under the USA Today banner.
The article is headlined as "More Women are Opting for Gig Work" and talks about how women "don't want to deal with colleagues", as well as wanting flexibility in their hours. According to the article, there is a high percentage of women who prefer this type of work (77%) vs men at 23%. The big thing for the men was commuting.
The 'vice president of research for the National Women's Law Center' is quoted as saying:
“The traditional workplace does not work for women for a number of reasons” [...] "It’s the 'old boys' network” that leaves women at a disadvantage when it comes to promotions and raises, especially in male-dominated environments such as factory floors and executive suites, says Tucker, who was asked by a USA TODAY reporter to comment on the survey results. “Women don’t always feel empowered and don’t feel comfortable” in settings where men of similar backgrounds form tightly knit cliques.
A feeling of uneasiness with colleagues probably also relates to a need for flexibility and work-life balance, she says. If a female employee has to pick up a child at school, she may find it awkward to approach a boss to ask for permission, Tucker says".
So maybe the "uneasiness" women feel could be in part to how the male colleagues may look at them, in relation to the original question in this thread? The men seeing feminism as a bad thing... if workplaces are still utilizing the "old boys network", it's understandable to reason that perhaps women can be seen as a threat?
e2a: sorry for the crap scan. It's tough to get a decent quality pickup on my phone with newspaper articles.
The article is headlined as "More Women are Opting for Gig Work" and talks about how women "don't want to deal with colleagues", as well as wanting flexibility in their hours. According to the article, there is a high percentage of women who prefer this type of work (77%) vs men at 23%. The big thing for the men was commuting.
The 'vice president of research for the National Women's Law Center' is quoted as saying:
“The traditional workplace does not work for women for a number of reasons” [...] "It’s the 'old boys' network” that leaves women at a disadvantage when it comes to promotions and raises, especially in male-dominated environments such as factory floors and executive suites, says Tucker, who was asked by a USA TODAY reporter to comment on the survey results. “Women don’t always feel empowered and don’t feel comfortable” in settings where men of similar backgrounds form tightly knit cliques.
A feeling of uneasiness with colleagues probably also relates to a need for flexibility and work-life balance, she says. If a female employee has to pick up a child at school, she may find it awkward to approach a boss to ask for permission, Tucker says".
So maybe the "uneasiness" women feel could be in part to how the male colleagues may look at them, in relation to the original question in this thread? The men seeing feminism as a bad thing... if workplaces are still utilizing the "old boys network", it's understandable to reason that perhaps women can be seen as a threat?
e2a: sorry for the crap scan. It's tough to get a decent quality pickup on my phone with newspaper articles.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
People don't generally opt for gig work do they though. They do it because they've no choice - the idea people do it because they like the flexibility is mostly one put out by right wing think tanks and the like to justify shoddy employment practices. If it's accurate more women are doing them that's an important point but I'd really question that interpretation.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
The article is available online here abe11825
There is a potentially interesting study there to see different views of the gig economy but from the way that press release was written, and that fact that it is coming from these people - jitjagjo, who I've never heard of.
But are coming out with such stuff like below I think a LOT of salt need to be taken here.
There is a potentially interesting study there to see different views of the gig economy but from the way that press release was written, and that fact that it is coming from these people - jitjagjo, who I've never heard of.
But are coming out with such stuff like below I think a LOT of salt need to be taken here.
I mean I think there is a a good bit of truth that
but that does not mean the gig economy is any better.
Agent Sparrow
the age of slippers and migraines
From having now read the article I think it still comes across as women having little choice, but rather than the choice being being gig work or no work, it’s gig work or work that doesn’t allow for them to do all the childcare that is disproportionately placed on them and/or work in sexist and exclusive environments. Some choice.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
Some of it definitely rings true, I know a fair few women who've been forced out into gig work and just stick with it a few years until they can find a way to loop back into a workplace with better working conditions, eg female dominated or remote work. MLMs mostly target women for a reason.
Gig work is diabolical for women though, the extra freedom you get also means there's extra liberties your colleagues and customers will try and take. Not even considering how an inability to get a mortgage or pass a rent check traps women more than men.
It's an act of last resort, not really a choice
Gig work is diabolical for women though, the extra freedom you get also means there's extra liberties your colleagues and customers will try and take. Not even considering how an inability to get a mortgage or pass a rent check traps women more than men.
It's an act of last resort, not really a choice
abe11825
Like to take a cement fix
Monkeygrinder's Organ - Understandably, with the comment of "People don't generally opt for gig work [...]. They do it because they've no choice" would then raise the question of "wouldn't it be similar to not accepting part time work in fast food, even if you're in dire straits for employment?". Two different things, I know, but you can choose not to do gig work for whatever reason, like you can choose not to do some sort of part time work for whatever reason. I do agree that the interpretation needs to be questioned.
redsquirrel - Thanks for finding it online. I appreciate that, which is why I wanted to point out it was possible to find it under the USA Today thing, in case that helped anyone who wanted to look more in to it. Only challenge is the link you provided is to a newspaper that restricts readership (one must pay a subscription fee to read all the articles). The shit thing about that Jitjatjo company is they're pushing for people to work flexible schedules, which is worse than part time, IMO, because it doesn't give you a proper work life balance (even though the quote you've got about the survey and company say otherwise. I've personally experienced part time work and also have interviewed for flex work, and the lesser of two evils has always been part time is better, from my understanding). Your point about taking the information with a grain of salt is on the same track as Monkeygrinder's Organ, in the comment about interpretation, I feel. It's true though - if Jitjato is putting out information about working, jobs and women in the workplace, maybe it does spawn from the thought of being uncomfortable around certain mindsets (like the theme of feminism from this entire thread) other than it being salary based. Then again, people are constantly fighting for more money across all genders and jobs right now. It does come down to an economy thing in a lot of cases.
Agent Sparrow - I think for some jobs out there, it is exceedingly disproportionate for women simply because "it's not their place" to be in a certain field (example is construction). Conversely, other fields could turn out to be some sort of sexist thing where men might see the women as a joke or doing something sexual (I'm thinking women police. Men could see a woman in uniform and think she's a stripper and won't take her seriously as a person in an emergency situation). So childcare could only be the "gig" the woman is capable of. Even if she opens up her own child care center... at least she's doing what she is supposed to? How about a nurse? Would that be considered the same thing these days as the police stripper remark? I could stand corrected and apologize in advance for the remark, but if the conversation is about men and feminism, would this be part of it?
muscovyduck - The potential with remote work, especially with a call center type job is, if the woman can "lower her voice" enough to sound gender neutral, maybe she then could not get taken advantage of by colleagues and customers (not sound like the stereotypical "Valley Girl")? Especially if she also has a gender neutral name (which these days a lot of people have neutral names)? There are people in my building who I've not met in the almost two years I've been at this job, because they are remote. Today, for example, one of the attorneys met a guy who has been with the firm for about a year, but because his normal desk is in a building the attorney doesn't typically go in to, she had never met him. His department and my department are displaced due to a flood in our part of the building, so we're all working together in another area. Then again, there's a guy who this attorney frequently needs to work with, whom she hasn't met in person before. The guy does a hybrid schedule and is only in office from 6am-9:30am Tuesday and Friday. The dude has been with the company for over 4 years and the attorney finally met him this past December at the employee Christmas Party. So gig work and remote work can do good and bad depending on circumstance, really.
redsquirrel - Thanks for finding it online. I appreciate that, which is why I wanted to point out it was possible to find it under the USA Today thing, in case that helped anyone who wanted to look more in to it. Only challenge is the link you provided is to a newspaper that restricts readership (one must pay a subscription fee to read all the articles). The shit thing about that Jitjatjo company is they're pushing for people to work flexible schedules, which is worse than part time, IMO, because it doesn't give you a proper work life balance (even though the quote you've got about the survey and company say otherwise. I've personally experienced part time work and also have interviewed for flex work, and the lesser of two evils has always been part time is better, from my understanding). Your point about taking the information with a grain of salt is on the same track as Monkeygrinder's Organ, in the comment about interpretation, I feel. It's true though - if Jitjato is putting out information about working, jobs and women in the workplace, maybe it does spawn from the thought of being uncomfortable around certain mindsets (like the theme of feminism from this entire thread) other than it being salary based. Then again, people are constantly fighting for more money across all genders and jobs right now. It does come down to an economy thing in a lot of cases.
Agent Sparrow - I think for some jobs out there, it is exceedingly disproportionate for women simply because "it's not their place" to be in a certain field (example is construction). Conversely, other fields could turn out to be some sort of sexist thing where men might see the women as a joke or doing something sexual (I'm thinking women police. Men could see a woman in uniform and think she's a stripper and won't take her seriously as a person in an emergency situation). So childcare could only be the "gig" the woman is capable of. Even if she opens up her own child care center... at least she's doing what she is supposed to? How about a nurse? Would that be considered the same thing these days as the police stripper remark? I could stand corrected and apologize in advance for the remark, but if the conversation is about men and feminism, would this be part of it?
muscovyduck - The potential with remote work, especially with a call center type job is, if the woman can "lower her voice" enough to sound gender neutral, maybe she then could not get taken advantage of by colleagues and customers (not sound like the stereotypical "Valley Girl")? Especially if she also has a gender neutral name (which these days a lot of people have neutral names)? There are people in my building who I've not met in the almost two years I've been at this job, because they are remote. Today, for example, one of the attorneys met a guy who has been with the firm for about a year, but because his normal desk is in a building the attorney doesn't typically go in to, she had never met him. His department and my department are displaced due to a flood in our part of the building, so we're all working together in another area. Then again, there's a guy who this attorney frequently needs to work with, whom she hasn't met in person before. The guy does a hybrid schedule and is only in office from 6am-9:30am Tuesday and Friday. The dude has been with the company for over 4 years and the attorney finally met him this past December at the employee Christmas Party. So gig work and remote work can do good and bad depending on circumstance, really.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
Been lying awake last night wondering what happens in the end to all these men? I know plenty of people end up in terrible relationships but a lot of these ones aren't even going to manage to trap someone if they stay on the path they're on, right? But the red pill manosphere ideology doesn't feel sustainable long term for an individual because it keeps dragging them further and further down a rabbit hole, so something will eventually have to give? It's difficult to imagine a society with so many angry single older men floating around
BigMoaner
We will all go together
some are truly fucked and will remain that way. i don't doubt their ability to trap someone though, the whole implication of their philosophy is manipulation. "do x y and z to get the girl/get laid". Real life and pain will either drag them out, or drag them further in. They haven't quite worked out that love and dating is not about masks and methods. they will do though, one day, and that's when they will land straight back at square one. but it's nto all hopeless, some will mature and start to see through it, i would suspect. a pathetic, rancid philosophy that holds no weight, surely some will grow teh fuck up?
BigMoaner
We will all go together
"Only the humanities can save us". WAs listening to Dylan's masterpiece Tangled Up in Blue this mornign and thought of it terms of this thread. A description of love and relationship that i guess its sung from teh "male perspective" because, eh, dylan is a man. and it's so deep and meaningful and heartfelt (i know patriarchy can be read into it, but that can be read into anything sadly). And then Andrew Tate talkign about love, which he never even does anyway, it's just about gain. The comparison between waht is deep and waht is shallow is so startling. We are so atomised, thinking that love can be reduced to facts, figures, and pie charts.
Last edited:
Are you on an e?
BigMoaner
We will all go together
I think the point I was trying to make that anyone manipulating another for gain has selfish likely insecure motives behind it. Which is the antithesis in my view of love and respectful relations. And the manosphere whole reason de etre is manipulation. It’s not even the mild kind of manipulation like doing yourself up to wow someone or getting a better body in the gym, which might work for about 10 minutes when initially meeting someone, and then reality will take over, it’s manipulation that is an a actual way of life and psychosocial interaction. Chuck in the factor also that what they are trying to manipulate is what they desire AND despise rolled into one. Frightening.
BigMoaner
We will all go together
I read a great description of vulnerability the other day “feeling afraid and unsure and having no way of resolving it”. Like a leap into the unknown on the psyche level. Manosphere is about 1000 tricks about never having to take that step because the hurt will be too much.
BigMoaner
We will all go together
Have no doubt that women can be as manipulative and damaging in certain circumstances. But then there isnt an entire philosophy of absoloute contempt being pummelled into young women’s brains by addictive software. And there isn’t the patriarchal structures that empower and charge horseshit like the manosphere surrounding said women.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
Possibly you shouldn't. It might help stop you saying weirdly paranoid shit about baby trapping to audiences of (relatively) normal people.
muscovyduck
Good IT skills and food hygiene competent
Go find a different thread for it you fucking weirdo.BigMoaner - your comments make sense and I can understand what you were trying to accomplish. Thanks for some more explanation.
Maybe it's not "weirdly paranoid shit" when you've actually had conversations about those situations with people who have been involved in it. Next time I want to talk to "(relatively) normal people", especially those who may or may not take drugs (for whatever reasons) I'll make sure to see you're not involved so I don't offend you with the topic.
Similar threads
