Anonymous
04/17/2017 07:14
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
I saw the thread title and thought oh this is gonna be good
Anonymous
04/17/2017 06:48
Subject: Re:What feminists don't understand about men
OP used a title to troll feminists for no reason. Feminists don't argue with the fact that women are attracted to wealthy and powerful men, all else being equal. They can also want their high powered, attractive DH's to help around the house. It's not going to make them want to sleep with their husbands, although it might get enough done to leave them energy for sex or lessen the resentment.
I get way more female attention now than when I was a college student. I was in far better shape then, and of course looked younger and had more energy (and hair). Now, I work in the c-suite, wear a suit, etc. Sure, you could say it's "confidence" which is probably true but that only goes so far. It's no different than a heavy-set, short-haired woman losing weight and growing out her hair and wearing flattering clothes. No one is calling her newly attracted male attention due to "confidence"
tl;dr this isn't a feminist issue.
I get way more female attention now than when I was a college student. I was in far better shape then, and of course looked younger and had more energy (and hair). Now, I work in the c-suite, wear a suit, etc. Sure, you could say it's "confidence" which is probably true but that only goes so far. It's no different than a heavy-set, short-haired woman losing weight and growing out her hair and wearing flattering clothes. No one is calling her newly attracted male attention due to "confidence"
tl;dr this isn't a feminist issue.
Anonymous
04/17/2017 06:46
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
I think he's bristling at the idea of "privilege." There are a lot of guys who are in situations that don't feel privileged -- because they aren't wealthy or handsome or whatever.
And it's true that guys can live lives that are brutal where they suffer from grinding poverty and social isolation. To such a person, it's galling to hear a woman talk about male privilege.
But, it's still true that they are beneficiaries of such privilege because, for the most part, if you held all the other variables the same but made the man a woman, the woman would have it even harder. The same applies, perhaps even more so, if you hold all the variables the same but switch race.
Still, it's all relative. Americans are incredibly privileged when compared to people in other parts of the world. But, it's somewhat rare to hear the people speaking of white, male privilege comparing their own privilege to that of people in less prosperous parts of the world.
And it's true that guys can live lives that are brutal where they suffer from grinding poverty and social isolation. To such a person, it's galling to hear a woman talk about male privilege.
But, it's still true that they are beneficiaries of such privilege because, for the most part, if you held all the other variables the same but made the man a woman, the woman would have it even harder. The same applies, perhaps even more so, if you hold all the variables the same but switch race.
Still, it's all relative. Americans are incredibly privileged when compared to people in other parts of the world. But, it's somewhat rare to hear the people speaking of white, male privilege comparing their own privilege to that of people in less prosperous parts of the world.
Anonymous
04/17/2017 04:04
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Truly fascinating. How did you figure this out?
Probably at his MRA meeting.
What's that?
Men Rights Actvists
Anonymous
04/17/2017 02:37
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
Hate to break it to you OP, but feminists are aware of the issues that men face, including the ones you talk about here. Why do you think feminists don't understand, let alone care about these issues?
Anonymous
04/17/2017 02:10
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
Anonymous wrote:It's called subtext. And it's obvious.
I don't agree. It's more of a "here is a different perspective on a situation that we both don't like. If you want to change it, you will need to be honest about the causes, including how we both contribute to it, instead of putting all the blame entirely on men."
Anonymous
04/17/2017 01:57
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
It's called subtext. And it's obvious.
Anonymous
04/17/2017 01:53
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm not the OP and do not necessarily agree with all the assertions he (presumably he?) makes. But, at least he offers more supports for his claims than PPs who just retort emotionally without any substantive points debunking OP's claims.
Why do you suppose he's directing his post to feminists? He's saying, "It's so hard to be a man in the patriarchy, particularly this corporate oligarchy we've created." Yes, we get that. You know what's even harder? Being a woman in this mess.
He thinks that his problems will be solved if half the world (the women) runs back into the kitchen, slips off their shoes, and gets to caretaking and baby-baking. That's less competition in the workplace for him. It still won't make him an alpha male, but at least no girls are beating him. Blame women for what other men do to you. Smart thinking there.
There is nothing in the original post suggesting this.
Anonymous
04/17/2017 01:47
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
Anonymous wrote:I'm not the OP and do not necessarily agree with all the assertions he (presumably he?) makes. But, at least he offers more supports for his claims than PPs who just retort emotionally without any substantive points debunking OP's claims.
Why do you suppose he's directing his post to feminists? He's saying, "It's so hard to be a man in the patriarchy, particularly this corporate oligarchy we've created." Yes, we get that. You know what's even harder? Being a woman in this mess.
He thinks that his problems will be solved if half the world (the women) runs back into the kitchen, slips off their shoes, and gets to caretaking and baby-baking. That's less competition in the workplace for him. It still won't make him an alpha male, but at least no girls are beating him. Blame women for what other men do to you. Smart thinking there.
Anonymous
04/17/2017 01:19
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
I'm not the OP and do not necessarily agree with all the assertions he (presumably he?) makes. But, at least he offers more supports for his claims than PPs who just retort emotionally without any substantive points debunking OP's claims.
Anonymous
04/17/2017 01:17
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Truly fascinating. How did you figure this out?
Probably at his MRA meeting.
What's that?
Anonymous
04/17/2017 01:13
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
Anonymous wrote:Truly fascinating. How did you figure this out?
Probably at his MRA meeting.
Anonymous
04/17/2017 00:26
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
Anonymous wrote:Men are judged almost entirely on their socioeconomic status. They have little incentive to worry about keeping things tidy and be a great housekeeper when people (including many posters here) "lose respect" for men who "only" make low six figures, and have unimpressive jobs, even if they are full-time. Men are ranked on a steeper bell curve than women. There are more "winners" and "losers" among men, and a relatively small number of "average." When was the last time you heard anyone other than a man called a "loser"?
Humans evolved in a way such that men are more "expendable" than women. They are more socially "stratified," and the "low" ranking males are "killed off" in wars, or other violence that is more commonly associated with low social status. "High" ranking males take their place by having more children. Women, due to the fact that that they can only have a smaller number of children, have evolved to be less stratified.
The "loser" males are the chronically unemployed, have dead-end jobs, or are in prison or homeless. The "winners" are corporate C-suite, IB guys, rock stars, etc. Women aren't living on this sharply polarized, socioeconomic knife's edge. In order to complete for higher socioeconomic status, men must focus on higher-stakes, higher-reward activities. Women can simply be physically fit and have a pleasant personality and they are generally accepted. There is less incentive among women for high-risk, high-reward activity because there is more room in the "middle" for women. This why women consistently become the "primary" housekeepers, the quintessential low-risk, low-reward activity.
Men make more money, on average, but this is partly skewed by the fact that the "losers" -- the homeless, unemployed, etc. -- are not included. They is also skewed by the fact that the "winners" make up for a disproportionate amount of the "advantage" among men. This is not a "privilege"; it is a requirement. Women are largely uninterested in settling down with men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. They want an "equal (or greater than) partner." Women are active enforcers of the social pressures that result in men making more money and doing less housework.
Not to be mean, but you sound really exhausting.
Anonymous
04/17/2017 00:09
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
Truly fascinating. How did you figure this out?
Anonymous
04/17/2017 00:06
Subject: What feminists don't understand about men
Men are judged almost entirely on their socioeconomic status. They have little incentive to worry about keeping things tidy and be a great housekeeper when people (including many posters here) "lose respect" for men who "only" make low six figures, and have unimpressive jobs, even if they are full-time. Men are ranked on a steeper bell curve than women. There are more "winners" and "losers" among men, and a relatively small number of "average." When was the last time you heard anyone other than a man called a "loser"?
Humans evolved in a way such that men are more "expendable" than women. They are more socially "stratified," and the "low" ranking males are "killed off" in wars, or other violence that is more commonly associated with low social status. "High" ranking males take their place by having more children. Women, due to the fact that that they can only have a smaller number of children, have evolved to be less stratified.
The "loser" males are the chronically unemployed, have dead-end jobs, or are in prison or homeless. The "winners" are corporate C-suite, IB guys, rock stars, etc. Women aren't living on this sharply polarized, socioeconomic knife's edge. In order to complete for higher socioeconomic status, men must focus on higher-stakes, higher-reward activities. Women can simply be physically fit and have a pleasant personality and they are generally accepted. There is less incentive among women for high-risk, high-reward activity because there is more room in the "middle" for women. This why women consistently become the "primary" housekeepers, the quintessential low-risk, low-reward activity.
Men make more money, on average, but this is partly skewed by the fact that the "losers" -- the homeless, unemployed, etc. -- are not included. They is also skewed by the fact that the "winners" make up for a disproportionate amount of the "advantage" among men. This is not a "privilege"; it is a requirement. Women are largely uninterested in settling down with men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. They want an "equal (or greater than) partner." Women are active enforcers of the social pressures that result in men making more money and doing less housework.
Humans evolved in a way such that men are more "expendable" than women. They are more socially "stratified," and the "low" ranking males are "killed off" in wars, or other violence that is more commonly associated with low social status. "High" ranking males take their place by having more children. Women, due to the fact that that they can only have a smaller number of children, have evolved to be less stratified.
The "loser" males are the chronically unemployed, have dead-end jobs, or are in prison or homeless. The "winners" are corporate C-suite, IB guys, rock stars, etc. Women aren't living on this sharply polarized, socioeconomic knife's edge. In order to complete for higher socioeconomic status, men must focus on higher-stakes, higher-reward activities. Women can simply be physically fit and have a pleasant personality and they are generally accepted. There is less incentive among women for high-risk, high-reward activity because there is more room in the "middle" for women. This why women consistently become the "primary" housekeepers, the quintessential low-risk, low-reward activity.
Men make more money, on average, but this is partly skewed by the fact that the "losers" -- the homeless, unemployed, etc. -- are not included. They is also skewed by the fact that the "winners" make up for a disproportionate amount of the "advantage" among men. This is not a "privilege"; it is a requirement. Women are largely uninterested in settling down with men from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. They want an "equal (or greater than) partner." Women are active enforcers of the social pressures that result in men making more money and doing less housework.