Women hate
I believe that one of the key reasons why a man will hate women is because of the power they seem to hold over him as sexual objects of desire. A woman can make a man want (to possess) her and yet also deny him access to her, thereby frustrating his desire. Women are perceived to be intentionally taunting men with their bodies, like a carrot on a stick, and men resent this. Hence why men often see sex as a form of conquest, in which a woman is finally dominated and put in her place. Sex is a form of revenge for these men. However, this very thing that men hate women for doing to them (manipulating their sexual desires) is itself often a form of revenge on men by women, who resent men for objectifying them.
Men objectify women -> women resent this objectification -> women take revenge on men by frustrating the sexual desires of men -> men resent this frustration -> men take revenge on women by raping them, or raping surrogates via porn.
edit: Just to be clear, I am not advocating for this dynamic, merely describing it.
Men objectify women -> women resent this objectification -> women take revenge on men by frustrating the sexual desires of men -> men resent this frustration -> men take revenge on women by raping them, or raping surrogates via porn.
edit: Just to be clear, I am not advocating for this dynamic, merely describing it.
Comments (228)
I think it all hinges on how you define "objectification" and on whether it is something practiced exclusively by men ....
A man who can be thusly overpowered isn't much of a man, then.
Oh sure, women can objectify, though that doesn't necessarily mean that objectification is natural. These women are female but living within the confines of a male-dominated culture, and they take on social roles that are manufactured by men for men. The question is: would these women objectify if they did not grow up in patriarchy? For that matter, would men objectify if they grew up outside of patriarchy?
I take objectification to mean the fixation/fetishization of the parts of a person's body and the ignoring of the person to whom this body belongs. Objectifying women == perceiving her as meat to be fucked in whatever way.
Please....if I go to bat I will likely get tossed out of here. :shade:
My mentor, my sage, you are the essence of a gentleman. :flower:
Of course, this is usually a narrow view based more on the man themselves than the women. This hate and anger can also easily manifest itself with other men. If I had to guess why women are abused more, it is because they are physically weaker, and hormonally less prone to direct confrontation. Women are unable to win, or let men win more in direct conflicts. I don't think its necessarily that men don't get into as many direct conflicts, its that most men are unwilling to let the other side win. Because victories are not easy, and defeat stings much more in a hard fought loss, men are less willing to directly confront other men who show they would not be easy.
Is someone teaching this to males??? If so, show me to your leader... :angry:
Well, I think animals in general have an innate tendency to regard other animals as objects to (1) fuck, (2) eat, or (3) run away from. :smile:
Of course, one could put a Marxist-Feminist spin on it if one really wanted to, but I for one am not particularly convinced, to be honest ....
Is this projection, or does some poll or study suggest any of this is true?
This gets my vote as the creepiest post of the year.
:up:
I do disagree. By virtue of physics, a woman cannot make a man want to do anything, let alone possess her.
What?
Sometimes, in order to commit or threaten violence against someone a perpetrator needs to first be persuaded that the victim deserves it. They are said to have "asked for it", as the saying goes, as if a violent act against another person is a kind of polite concession. The instinct for justice is so strong that the perpetrator cannot live with himself having committed such a wrong. So women in general, or one woman in particular, are first given the blame to carry. When she has learned to shoulder that with patience she is given the punishment, either in terms of continual resentment and implied aggression or in actual violence. The roots of violence in the psyche of the perpetrator are thereby ignored, all attention now focussing on the victim and what she "must have done" to provoke the response. This is all neatly summed up in the expression 'victim-blaming'.
Quoting _db
"Being sexually attractive and unavailable" is here framed as a wrong perpetrated by a woman against a man, as if failing to make ourselves sexually available to all who desire us is a dereliction of duty. The implied duty is to make one's body available on demand. The consequence of failure to comply is that Quoting _db
I think the OP accurately tracks the thought process of victim-blaming and justification of rape but seems worryingly uncritical of it.
In what way do I seem uncritical of it? The purpose of this post was to expose and discuss the bullshit rape culture and women hate that men participate in and perpetuate.
Excellent post, btw.
That assumes a whole lot of intentionality. I doubt such intentionality is there at all.
Quoting Cuthbert
Indeed, in criminology this is called rationalization of criminal behavior by the perpetrator
Quoting Cuthbert
What is worrying too is that this gaze tends to become internalized. Even for the person being oppressed by violence it becomes a way to sustain the illusion of control by 'blaming' your own behavior. It gives the victim an illusory restoration of control and influence. The wickedness of (sexual) violence also lays in the feelings of self doubt it provokes in the victim. It renders them powerless and self blame is a psychological mechanism to restore the illusion of control.
I doubt it's overtly conscious, but I would say it is likely that this or similar thought processes are going on subconsciously, and we occasionally get glimmers of them when we think about the reasons behind sexual anti-social behavior.
[quote='Dworkin, "Intercourse"']
For women, according to the killer/husband, virginity is the highest state, an ideal; and a fall from viriginity is a fall into trivialization, into being used as a thing; one dresses up to be the thing; one does not have a full humanity but must conform to the rituals and conventions of debasement as a sexual object. But the reduction of humanity into being an object for sex carries with it the power to dominate men because men want the object and the sex. The rage against women as a group is particularly located here: women manipulate men by manipulating man's sexual desire; these trivial, mediocre things (women) have real power over men through sex.
[...]
This dominance of men by women is experienced by the men as real - emotionally real, sexually real, psychologically real; it emerges as the reason for the wrath of the misogynist.
[...]
[the killer/husband[ sees that powerlessness generates revenge, and revenge is what women accomplish in the sensuality he experiences as their dominance, his powerlessness.
[...]
'so it is with women: [...] 'Ah, you want us to be merely objects of sensuality - all right, as objects of sensuality we will enslave you.'
[/quote]
What Dworkin says here is basically what I outlined in the initial post of this thread.
:lol: Lucky you!
---
Ms. Penny (a woman), Mrs. Carr (a woman), Dame Lena (another woman) treat me badly. I hurt, it's not justified, in fact it's completely gratuitous - the insults, the beatings, etc. :smile:
THEREFORE
All women are bad.
I hate ALL women i.e. I'm now a misogynist.
---
Is this a statistical argument, with Ms. Penny, Mrs. Carr, and Dame Lena being my sample?
The main delusions here are that a man is the central, rational subject of a chaotic reality - and women have subjective intention ONLY in relation to him. This assumption gives the false impression that a woman’s actions are determined in a necessary relation to men. Men who delude themselves that their own intentions are entirely rational, maintain this delusion by projecting all their fears and desires onto the world as external ‘forces’ against his rationality. A man acts on his reasoning, but a woman acts on her relation to a man’s desires? Nope. It is too common a misconception that a woman chooses (or should choose) her action, clothing, etc as a direct and intentional response to the fears and desires of the men around her. So when a woman acts contrary to his desires, or fails to allay his fears, she presents as a chaotic force to be subdued by his efforts.
Is it too much to recognise that both men and women act on AFFECT, translated from reasoning and inclusive of fears and desires? The fact that a woman may be sufficiently self-aware to NOT feel the need to appear rationally unaffected does not give men permission to do so - a man’s fears or desires are NOT a woman’s manipulation, responsibility, or fault. His inability or unwillingness to reason amidst his own fears or desires has nothing at all to do with women.
Yeah it's an all-too-common phenomenon that women are physically abused by men for not conforming to the expectations projected upon them by men. If you don't see women as people with intentions of their own then when they seem to express these intentions, they must be violently put back in their place.
Quoting Possibility
Sorry, I didn't follow this, can you explain a bit more?
Quoting Possibility
:up:
I remember someone talking a while back (maybe a good few years ago now?) about romanticism being a blight on modern sensibilities. Romance in the terms of ‘knight in shining armour’ and the ‘happily ever after’ mindset. I didn’t agree with it over all but there were some good points to consider that may have had an adverse effect on western society at large.
I my personal experience of outside of western spheres of influence there is a much more pragmatic attitude towards marriage and relationships. In one way (I admit) it seems more archaic to me, but in others I can see that there are bonuses.
That's like saying it is naive to assume it is all about racist white supremacy because there are some black people who hate white people. :yawn:
That Bill Burr "comedy" was stupid and depended entirely on a strawman. Is his point - and is it your point - that battered women are complicit in being battered? "Now I'm not saying the man should have hit her buuuuuuuut she had it coming...wHy cAnT wE aSk AnY qUeStiOns????" I mean come on that's just bullshit.
Any ‘self’ is constructed as a perceived distinction of logic, quality and energy in relation to one’s conceptual reality. A construction of self always relates to a corresponding construction of reality. So a rationally perceived construction of self corresponds to a irrationally perceived reality.
If you acknowledge that any fears or desires you experience are an aspect of self, you have no need to appear entirely rational. But if you don’t appear entirely rational, then someone who will NOT acknowledge the fears or desires they experience is going to try to attribute theirs to you (the corresponding reality) in any perceived interaction.
Thank you for clarifying. It was because in the OP you expound the men's reasoning ("key reasons", "Hence why..") without pointing out any faults in it. In the OP you don't seem to concur with the reasoning and you don't seem to reject it. So it's uncritical. It's worryingly uncritical because it leaves open the possibility that you concur. Clearly (now) you do not. Which is a relief.
I was very careful not to make any generalisations about either men or women. I specifically referred to ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’, unless describing the delusion itself, within the context described. Yes, I agree that women can be equally delusional, and that this really has nothing to do with any apparent differences between men and women. It’s more about the lengths to which some people will go to maintain their delusions in the face of reality.
Quoting I like sushi
I think the initial idea behind ‘romantic love’ was quickly subsumed. It originally refers to a recognition of non-commutable values in perceived potential: the quantitative efforts of a knight in relation to the qualitative values of beauty and nobility. It was turned into a value transaction: on one hand it was an opportunity for women to effect change, but it quickly became an expectation that beauty and nobility - values a woman possessed in her own right - can be reduced to a quantifiable potential or value. With women prevented from also possessing economic, political or even academic potential, any quantifiable value they were deemed to possess was subject to negotiations by the men around them.
But Romanticism in general used language to develop conceptual structures of qualitative value, potential and power - which motivated Scientism to reduce these conceptual structures to their quantifiable aspects. So, yes - I do agree that it’s a much broader issue than gender.
Saying ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’ is a general comment directed at men and women. So it was a specific reference to a general category.
Saying ‘some,’ ‘a minority’ or ‘for example’ as an instance to explain a point would have worked better.
Anyway, my original point was referring to Bill Burr’s joke in which he outlined several different situations where those women acted in a manner that deserves contempt and/or hatred. There are valid reason to have a strong dislike towards someone and Burr was not saying you SHOULD hit women at all, the joke was that to say there is no reason to is wrong - obviously if you haven’t seen the piece then this may sound insane (comedy is not exactly meant to be quoted I just assumed most people had seen it).
Actually, it was a specific reference to specifically described delusion that results in misogyny and violence, so I stand by my terminology.
Quoting I like sushi
I hadn’t seen it before, no. Having now watched it, I do get what you’re trying to say, but you’re deflecting.
Let me try to give you a clearer picture of how many women argue. It’s honestly not about winning arguments - it’s about getting him to recognise that his supposedly ‘rationally justified’ position is distorted by affect before he’s even chosen his words. It may appear rational in his head, but it is impossible to present it as such. Because there is an established structure of affect between them that cannot be ignored, isolated or excluded in ANY interaction. Especially in disagreements. Every time he presents an isolated rational argument against her position, he disregards this. So, in order to bring this aspect of the interaction back to his attention, she presents the affected structure of her position, which he interprets as ‘crazy shit’ because it has no logical (or temporal) relation to his argument. That’s true, it doesn’t - but that’s honestly not the point. The point is that their interaction has another aspect, which he is ignoring, isolating or deliberately excluding.
Burr’s statement that “there are plenty of reasons to hit a woman” is deliberately worded to rationally justify the potential for violence against women without inciting actual violence. And if you’ve ever witnessed how that potential for violence, hatred, etc is used to force compliance from a woman without ever hitting her, then you would understand how sinister it can be.
Burr considers his anger and violent thoughts towards his partner to be rationally justified. I don’t. As far as I’m concerned (and I may be in the minority here) there is no reasonable justification for contempt or hatred, let alone violence, between two people who love each other.
Here’s a tip: acknowledge affect as a significant aspect of the interaction, and construct a mutual reasoning with this in mind.
I won’t waste any more of my time trying to discuss this then. Your reply shows such a oddly skewed idea of how men and women interact that I cannot take anything you say seriously. You literally just repeated this idea of men rationally justifying something and stating that women don’t want to win an argument? This is a generalisation, and I would add I very, very poor and inaccurate one.
Bill Burr is a comedian. He was making a joke and ‘specifically’ states he is not justifying violence against women. It is utterly stupid to suggest that if you actually watched the entire artistic piece (which is brilliant!).
I was saying that many women argue in this way when men attempt to rationally justify their position - not that ALL women do, or that ALL men rationally justify. And I didn’t say that women don’t want to win an argument - only that when they argue this way, it isn’t about winning the argument - despite what even they might think.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Next time you find yourself trying to have a rational argument with someone who keeps getting defensive or personally attacking you, try being honest about how you feel at their remarks, and acknowledge your established relationship as part of your reasoning. You’d be surprised at how quickly it diffuses the situation. Male or female, doesn’t matter. Because a disagreement with someone whose interactions you value should never be about winning.
Quoting I like sushi
No, he specifically states that you shouldn’t actually hit women, but then argues that it’s perfectly reasonable to wish that you could. Except it’s just a joke, so don’t think too much about. Brilliant! What an artist! At least he acknowledges his own ignorance.
However sexism seems to have flourished under religion.
As a gay man I do think I can appreciate women better without the frustration of falling into lust. Maybe.
You're on this ice here.
Psychology works with statistical averages as the normative. That which is statistically average is the norm that all must comply with (lest they get branded as abnormal).
If the type of behavior as described in the OP is found to be statistically average, then it is normative, normal, and thus not to be criticized.
Where in the world (geographically) did this take place?
But women objectify themselves and other women in this same way. Pick up pretty much any "women's" magazine, book, tv show, seminar, webinar, and there it is: "see yourself as a piece of meat to be fucked".
It's a bit of a stretch to say that women do this because they are the poor victims of patriarchy.
:lol: No offense [B]Possibility[/B]
I think this is how people are in general, so I would replace all "man" and "woman" in your text with "person". Ie.
Each person tends to think of themselves as the central, rational subject of a chaotic reality - and other peoplen have subjective intention ONLY in relation to them. (And amended for the rest of your text.)
Quoting _db
Men treat other men that way as well. Women treat other women that way too. It's how parents treat their children, employers their employees, teachers their students, the government its citizens.
It's a basic pattern of power dynamics among people. (It extends to how they treat animals as well.)
The actual use of physical force seems to be more a matter of convenience and the actual differences in physical prowess in any given situation.
People are generally like that, this isn't limited to men-women interactions.
Which happens when one or both of them don't actually want to be in the relationship, but refuse to acknowledge this and to act accordingly. This is also a tactic to break up a relationship, or the individual interaction; it's a tactic intended to create psychological distance between people (which can then translate into physical distance).
Women do that to women as well. In fact, even more frequently than men, insofar a woman has more interactions with other women than with men.
But that would either make an end to the power game, or take it to a whole new level.
Bah. I don't believe this. I find men generally to be too aloof toward women for the above kind of reasoning to apply.
:lol:
False reasoning and bad behaviour may be common and even sometimes the norm. I guess that it is so. But it may still be criticised.
The men's reasoning that is expounded in the OP and not concurred with by the author can be criticised thus (to save repetition):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/666354
For example, a humanist worldview, or some religious views.
How can you tell whether some reasoning is false and some behavior is bad?
Psychology, as a (scientific) discipline can say at most that the statistically average is the norm. For everything else, some other worldview, philosophy, stance is needed and the supremacy of which is implicitly taken for granted.
I was specifically addressing the OP - but yes - I agree, and have said said, that the issue ultimately has nothing to do with gender.
Quoting baker
Agreed. Did I make any claim that it is?
Quoting baker
Well, I wouldn’t assume they didn’t want to be in the relationship, although I would agree that it’s a possibility. I was referring specifically here to an ongoing relationship. My point is that I don’t think people are necessarily aware of this structure of affect while they’re in a conceptual-level discussion. And if they are aware, they don’t necessarily think it should factor into the discussion. Which I think is fine as long as there is no ongoing relationship between affected positions, or any chance of actual interaction.
Quoting baker
Sort of. Hatred, yes. Violence, no.
Quoting baker
I agree with the first part - that’s kind of the point. But what ‘whole new level’ are you referring to?
By considering the premisses stated or implied and the conclusions purportedly derived from them.
Quoting baker
I can tell that it's wrong to rape a woman either because she refuses sex or indeed for any other supposed reason. You can do this too. You don't need to ask me how. You're already there.
I can give you deontology and utilitarianism and intuitionism if you need the philosophical bases. But for this thread topic it really is not necessary.
I skim-read recipes and think "That just means chuck it all in, heat it up and stir a bit." The results are less than impressive. That's another example where careful reading can not only help but is even necessary to understanding.
True, I think women are far more likely to be dehumanized— but that’s a product of culture.
So, you give one reason for 'a man hating women'. I haven't read all the discussion, so what are the other key reasons as to why women might be seen as posing some kind of a threat to the power of men? How do they frustrate the power of men? Which men are most dominant in society and in a position to pass regressive laws concerning all those they might fear or wish to control?
Quoting Agent Smith
Thanks. A long and informative wiki article with 187 references.
Points I found interesting re the ambiguous title 'Women hate':
1.
How on earth can a woman showing lack of interest in having sex be seen as 'reverse rape'?
What does that even mean?
It is not an assault on their bodies, incurring physical harm. Can any psychological trauma be as great?
How would that justify raping a woman? Isn't that false reasoning just a handy excuse for criminal behaviour, they get what they want by any means. 'Men hate'.
2.
An important difference in attitude. Apparently, incel women don't hate men for not wanting them sexually.
Why not? Is it about low self-esteem? Or are women generally less violent than men?
That's not to say that some women don't hate some men for other reasons...
***
Today, an article shines more light on the subject. The rising threat of violence and causes:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/16/involuntary-celibates-incels-threat-us-secret-service
I complained that the OP was uncritical of the 'reasons' (scare quotes because the reasoning is false) for men's hate and violence against women. The author _db explained that they were not subscribing to the 'reasoning' but describing it. The concepts of rationalisation - 'handy excuse' as you say - and victim-blaming were used to criticise the 'reasoning'.
Quoting Amity
I would say - quite obviously 'yes'. But it doesn't follow that any given man will be more or less violent than any given woman. Take a violent man and you will likely find a history of being somewhat a loser. Take a non-violent man and you will quite likely find the same. That's because there are more losers than winners in the world . Take a man with lots of money and high social status and you won't be any less likely to have found someone who is violent towards women than if you picked just any old average loser. Women are generally less violent than men. But the step from there to 'incels are a threat' is a big and uncertain logical move.
Even then. Hard.
I firmly believe that sexual frustration is at the root of all wars started by men.
Why don't y'all just cut straight to the chase?
Commit suicide. Go to heaven. Have the requisite number of virgins. And be done with it already.
Not sure if that offer applies to women...
Oooops, my brain just flipped :scream:
Because we love life and love each other. Despite...[insert everything]
You know, folks do do that... Rates of youth suicide and attempted youth suicide in Western societies are quite high.
Yes, you did well to rescue the discussion. It was in danger of becoming hysterical.
Much appreciated.
Quoting Cuthbert
Yes. The winner takes it all.
Quoting Cuthbert
The threat from incels is not one of my illogical moves. I do have others, though.
'Twas just the US Secret Service. Have they nothing better to do?
:heart: :pray: :fire:
I know. And that is most concerning. For all kinds of reasons.
It's not a laughing matter but my brain did a flip. Don't blame me.
It was the cheese toastie I had for breakfast...
An ex girlfriend of mine pumped a bullet in her head, making it clear she was doing it because I wouldn't come back to her. That still hurts, decades later. I'm crying writing this down now...
So suicide used to be the way. But now some of those incels are killing others too, prior to suicide. So by that metric, the problem is getting worse.
Also, I didn't know incel had a women's wing. Well, at least in equal/proportionate representation they didn't get the short end of the stick. Bitter sweet.
So sorry to hear this. You have my sincere sympathy. I hope you weren't there when she shot herself.
Bad enough to find a body...or read a note...or listen to the words, repeated.
That is the saddest thing about some suicides.
Some know the effect it will have on others left behind. And don't care.
Making them the reason for their unhappiness, their death.
Some have mental health problems. Others might have an immature attitude as to what love is...
It takes strength not to return to a partner who threatens suicide, even as you still hold some love for them. It takes a lot of guts to deal with severely unhappy relationships; cutting out the toxicity.
Knowing what the fall-out might be...
I don't know your circumstances but I reckon you're one of the brave guys.
The pain and the pleasure of being human, hmm.
Google will help you know. But then again, if you don't even read the articles you link to:
Quoting Agent Smith
I would agree that women, being people, have the capacity to make decisions. Bikini models choose to be bikini models, etc. Alcoholics choose to be alcoholics (60% of the revenue in the alcohol industry comes from alcoholics), etc.
But I think that it would be too shallow of an analysis to entirely put the blame for objectification on the women who choose to objectify themselves. The objectification is marketed towards men - it is the male gaze that these women are attempting to satisfy. And by doing so there is the implicit message: that if you don't look like this, you aren't good enough.
There is also a case to be made that the objectification of women reached new heights when women joined the workforce. After the feminine mystique was demolished in the first wave of feminism, there had to be a way to compensate for the economic loss that came with women leaving the kitchen. They weren't buying the household stuff that they usually did. The only thing left was to ramp up the body image ideal. More makeup, more clothes, more surgeries, more diets. It's all about the $ $ $ $ $ . It also happened to put an unfair double standard on women, who not only had to be professionals but also had to be beautiful (a fluid concept that cannot be pinned down).
The feminization of women is fundamentally a male phenomenon; the femininity that is imposed upon women is a male construct. The entire purpose is to keep women from acting like men; only men are allowed to be full persons. This is also why homosexuality was and still is so loathed by patriarchy - it puts a man in a woman's place (he is getting fucked, but that's a woman's role! Men do the fucking, and women get fucked).
Yes, suicide is often used to hurt others too. Sometimes, it is not just self-violence; rather it is meant to scar others permanently. And it does. The suicide of a loved one is not something one can forget.
{{{{{Olivier}}}}}} I am so very sorry for what you have endured as the result of another's personal choice.
I mean nothing more and nothing less than to let you know that my heart aches for you.
2.8k replies and it just now flipped? :rofl:
You are a flipping Warrior! :sparkle:
Correction - Rates of male suicide are very high:
Peace :victory: :heart: :sparkle:
Where can you see the suicides in the graphic?
The graph represents rates of suicide in the US. Here's a link:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6909a7.htm
Wilhelm Reich says the same. Restricted sexuality gives birth to worlds of terror.
One in 1000 mans kill themselves in the US? Djee, what kind of country is that?
Yes, that's the thesis of The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Interesting note.
Wow. I had no idea :gasp:
Really?!
The graph says 120 per 100 000. 180 even. That's about 1 in 500!
Ooob. It's 12.0
Finding a convincing explanation for the historical rise of fascism is an important task, still unfinished I think.
That's the value for male firearm suicide per year. There's another 7 guys killing themselves by suffocation, and another 2 by poisoning. Total 21 per 100,000.
We have to put humanity in an orgone accumulator!
Yeah, I realized. Still, 1 in 5000... That's 60 000 per year.
Quoting Olivier5
The theme is rather current. We have turned sexuality into a means of oppression and the vice of this oppression gives rise to violence. Even J.J. Martin argue that Game of Thrones was built around this theme. There is something peculiar in that line of reasoning though, because the solution is so obvious, release the taboos around sexuality. However, that has never been the case. One of the oldest most universal taboos is the prohibition of incest, a law regulating sexuality. If we take both tendencies seriously we have within ourselves the conflicting desire of regulating sexuality and of releasing it.
I think anthropological research could show us how societies cope with these two opposite demand. Does it have something to do with patriarchal structures? Are the 'means of reproduction' somehow the real 'means of poduction in the Marxist sense? Is sexuality how it is practiced among man somehow conjoined to religious ritual, with a similar root as butying one's dead?
I agree and want to congratulate @EugeneW for bringing it up. The incels do tend to turn their sexual frustration into violence. Now, sexual violence is nothing new, but to murder women out of sexual frustration is NOT something we've seen in the past. It is new, historically, a deeply troubling development. It's a new level of perversion.
Another 'theory' is that of Michel Houellebecq in his Elementary Particles: sexual liberation during the 60's and 70's led to high sexual competition between males, and between females, with the most attractive people screwing all their content and less attractive folks living in eternel sexual misery. Freedom leads to inequality between the haves and the haves not, now applied to sex as well.
The tittle of Houellebecq's first book is also about that: Extension of the Competitive Domain ie an extension of competition from the sphere of production and consumption (under capitalism) into the sphere of reproduction. Like an extension of capitalism to sex.
This theory works well. It explains the nostalgia for some idealised past when young folks were only trying to find a mate for life, and when therefore, while the attractive ones would be taken by similarly attractive persons of the other sex, the less attractive ones could also mate with less attractive persons of the other sex...
Now, in a competitive sex scenario, even the less attractive people have their eyes set on the most attractive people of the other sex, and there lies the problem. The sex game is open (or so they've been led to think) so they want to compete. Note that the incels are obsessed with the most popular girls. They've given a name to them, Karies? They can't let go of them, while in their idealized past, wise unattractive boys would think something more practical eg: "I can't fuck a princess, 'cause they are for the princes, so I'll fuck my less attractive neighbour instead. I'd rather get a paycheck than wait to win the lottery."
If we all want to win the lottery, we'll all end up unhappy and frustrated.
Too deterministic and neo-liberal for my taste. It would only work when there is some objective criterion for attraction and only on the assumption everyone wants the same thing screw around as much as possible. I think there are deeply felt anxieties around sex but not of the sort, "hey, I want to do only a prince or princess". That to me smacks of rationalization. "yeah, I do not have sex but I have too high standards".
I would look to a sociological explanation. Sexuality, like many other walks of life have become gamified, framed as competition and considered markers of success. The current anxiety around sexuality is not very different from the anxiety around having the best education, the highest grades, the best most earning job etc. The law of competition is a man made law, not a given
Yes, but that's pretty much how Houellebecq phrases it. He would agree with all that.
Quoting Tobias
Isn't this precisely the problem? Incels totally internalize the gaming pressure AND the rules saying which kinda girl/boy is popular and hence likeable by all, and which type of girls/boys is NOT popular hence NOT likeable by all. There's such a thing as a 'canon of beauty', everywhere, but they sacralized it. They carved it into the bloody stone that their brain is made of.
Yes I would agree, though I would not blame their brains. I would point to the societal forces feeding them this kind of morality. It is the story of our age.
Oxford philosopher Amia Srinivasan has written about this:
https://www.anothermag.com/design-living/13510/the-right-to-sex-how-amia-srinivasan-wrote-the-most-divisive-book-of-2021
Thanks for the resource!
:fire: that is something I have been fascinated by in recent years. I have researched it a lot and have come to the same conclusion. There are some good theories, but recent events have put some of them into question.
:up: Elementary Particles was quite good. Sex is like money: some people have a lot of it, most people have some but nothing to brag about, and some don't have any.
But that's about where the similarities end, since nobody deserves sex like how they deserve money (or the means to afford life requirements)
Except that sex gets stale, money does not.
What are the theories and how does the current situation make you question them?
I agree it's a fascination. Fascism and would-be dictators, the prevention of.
Is it possible?
Another discussion, perhaps. But in the meantime...
***
What are the characteristics of a dictatorship or someone who aspires to such?
Quoting Types and Characteristics of Dictatorship with Examples
So, given a short-list we should be able to connect the dots, no?
What attributes do they have in common? What immediately stands out?
What about drawing a Venn diagram...
I haven't analysed any of the above but my feeling is:
It's about maintenance of perpetual power by a certain kind of regressive, repressive male, no?
I know that's a simplification but a useful start to another necessary discussion, perhaps...
Yes. I wonder which way round the explanation goes. I mean, do men get the opportunity to be nasty because they have power or do they maintain power on account of being already nasty? Well, both, probably. In a matriarchal society would women end up being the nasty ones on account of having power or would the world be kinder on account of women being in charge?
Good question.
We could look at where in the world women currently have power, or have had power as a leader.
How did their countries and people fare? Well, bad, better, worse...what are the criteria?
Thatcher in the UK was a bit of a bitch with her:
"There's no such thing as society".
Perhaps the problem lies more in only having one charismatic leader whose power goes to their head.
Would a woman be more cooperative and listen...take note...and then do what the hell she liked?
Do women in charge tend to want progress and growth...?
Are they more open to reason? Some would say that females are too emotional to lead...
Do they not even recognise the emotions that men have?
Fear and desire prime motivators for all...
Is there a female leader you admire? And why?
I was a fan of Merkel, but not because she was a women. Because she a regular nice bloke, cautious, smart, not an asshole.
There are many, but I would also say 'leadership' includes a lot of roles that do not include political power. There was (perhaps still is) a view that Thatcher was a token woman who acted as a stooge in a prevailing patriarchy and who internalised the surrounding culture of male aggression. Well, OK, I can see that. But there is a danger in this view of denying womanhood to any woman who transgresses stereotypical expectations of the feminine. At least, that was how the debate went in English pubs in 1983 and I suppose that is not the end of the matter.
I think that is the root of the problem. We have come to compare everything to money.
Quoting Amity
Quoting Cuthbert
Well, it raises a lot of very thorny questions and none of the conclusions seem especially agreeable to either sex. First of all, who teaches the aggressive (rather than regressive) repressive male? Or are males somehow by nature bound to be aggressive and repressive and is it best to keep them under perpetual surveillance? If it is somehow a natural defect in males, is it then far fetched to hypothesize that females have some natural traits that cause them to become more easily attracted to a certain class of men?
Secondly, if it is cultural: where does machismo come from? It is a cultural trait perpetuated in a patriarchal society, but as the advantage men have over women due to superior physical strength (in terms of 'bursts' of strength, not tenacity or fitness in general as women love long than men and if the sport emphasizes durability fmelae bodies tend to outplay men's at some point) dwindles, so too should the advantage in terms of societal power. It would make the authoritarian male a species on the verge of extinction.
There are indications however that it is not very clear cut. Feminist criminologists hypothesized that crime rates of women would come to resemble men's. That has not happened.
My hypthesis is that there is a system of 'subterranean norms' squarely in place that keeps the existing structures of dominance and power alive. Both men and women keep them intact. These norms which are perpetuated in everyday conversation, on television, in movies, on school playground and on university campuses and tell us that having a sexually attractive man or women as a partner is superior to having a bright or witty one. From Lady Chatterly's lover to Material Girl by Madonna and from James Bond Maria Magdalen, the sexual always trumps the intellectual. That is no complaint, just an analysis. You and I, all of us, perpetuate these subterranean norms. 'Officially' though we all argue against them and tell ourselves but especially others we all want a partner that is intelligent, smart and kind.
I used to think exactly that but I have gradually become less convinced that extinction or even dwindling are anywhere near.
[quote=Caitlin Moran, What Men Need To Know About Women, 2016] We’re scared. We don’t want to mention it, because it’s kind of a bummer, chat-wise and we’d really like to talk about stuff that makes us happy, like look at our daughters – and we can’t help but think, “Which one of us? And When?” We walk down the street at night with out keys clutched between our fingers, as a weapon.[/quote]
That was 2016 - then Me Too, then Sarah Everard. The expression of fear is getting more confident but I don't see the fear getting any less, because of the 'subterranean norms' and everyday sexism.
This dynamic is also breaking up in modern culture, hence we see the reaction of both women and men on the extreme ends aggressively enforcing against or for the dynamic.
It's the reason we have this toxic male incel culture of dividing up men in Chads, Sigmas Alphas etc. It's a way for them to cope with the reality that the traditional dynamic has broken down and it doesn't work to "just be a man" anymore, you have to naturally fit the narrative of the dynamic, otherwise, you're an outsider and women will see you as an outsider, excluding you from this dynamic.
Basically, people have realized that this dynamic is bullshit (outdated) and doesn't include the complexity of gender relations as it exists today. So people who aren't capable of accepting (either mentally or unwillingly) this new status quo, rebel against it and tries to build a new narrative that incorporates new simplified explanations for this complexity.
In doing so, the exclusion from this complexity means they are also excluding themselves since they gravitate towards the old dynamic more and therefore men more openly show hate towards women today.
This also generates a counter-act from women, who has found liberation in this new complexity and want to defend it. Some so extreme that it becomes a counter-culture towards that incel culture. They start to hate men because they view everyone man as promoting the old dynamic.
In some Hegelian manner, all of this will synthesize through generations. We have two extreme thesis and antithesis sides that will eventually synthesize into the complexity they are pro or opposed to. We're almost seeing it in new generations of kids growing up, gender relations aren't as toxic outside those outliers growing up with older men and women who are teaching them to be toxic.
I agree but what would be the causes for that?
Quoting Cuthbert
I agree with this too. I do not think there are subterranean norms idealizing sexual violence between strangers. That is generally loathed upon I intuit. However, our society portrays the norm that if you want something you should come and get it, that success is a choice and that if you just want it hard enough success will be there for you. That mentality I consider to be spilling over to the gender relations as well. I just googled around a bit and found this plethora of videos telling us guys how to set up the ideal dating site profile that will get us the match we want. It is sad, everyone trying to be unique in exactly the same way. Authenticity stylized. This kind of commodification of love brings forth the appeal to 'distributive justice'. If love is a matter of goods, why would I have less of a right to them then you?
Oh oh... Now you'll be bombarded forever with ads from dating consultants and firms, telling you how you are doing it all wrong.
I get them. Because I did a similar search.
I haven't hit on a woman for the past 20 years, and prior to that I did it three times in my entire life. But now I can't go on Youtube without this c..t in an advertisement, telling me how I am doing it all wrong... Hey, I'm not doing anything.
Thank you, you are very kind. Honestly I failed her, but yes, in the end it was her choice.
It seemed more like self-preservation at the time. Nothing brave at all there.
Quoting _db
That was intriguing. My current hypothesis goes from Darwin to the death of God and the triumph of materialism over humanism. IOW, I lean to a philosophical explanation along the lines of Camus in Letters to a German Friend:
[I]
We have long believed together that this world had no higher reason and that we were frustrated. I still believe that in a way. But I drew other conclusions than those of which you spoke then and which, for so many years, you have been trying to force into history. [•••]
You have never believed in the meaning of this world and you have taken from it the idea that everything was equivalent and that good and evil could be defined as one wished. You assumed that in the absence of any human or divine morality the only values ??were those which governed the animal world, that is to say violence and cunning. You concluded from this that man was nothing and that one could kill his soul, that in the most insane of stories the task of an individual could only be the adventure of power, and his morality, the realism of conquest. And in truth, I who thought I thought like you, I saw hardly any argument to oppose you, if not a violent taste for justice which, in the end, seemed to me as unreasonable as the most sudden of passions.
Where was the difference? It's that you accepted to despair slightly and that I never consented to it. It is that you admit enough of the injustice of our condition to resolve to add to it, while it seemed to me on the contrary that man had to affirm justice to fight against eternal injustice, to create happiness to protest against the universe of misfortune. Because you have turned your despair into intoxication, because you have freed yourself from it by erecting it into a principle, you have agreed to destroy the works of man and to fight against him, to complete his essential misery. And I, refusing to admit this despair and this tortured world, I only wanted men to rediscover their solidarity in order to enter into a struggle against their revolting destiny.
You see, from the same principle we have drawn different morals. It's because along the way you abandoned lucidity and found it more convenient (you would have said indifferent) for someone else to think for you and for millions of Germans. Because you were tired of struggling against the sky, you rested in this exhausting adventure where your task is to maim souls and destroy the earth. In short, you have chosen injustice, you have placed yourself with the gods. Your logic was only apparent.
I chose justice on the contrary, to remain faithful to the earth. I continue to believe that this world has no higher meaning. But I know that something in it has meaning and it is man, because he is the only being who demands to have it. This world has at least the truth of man and our task is to give him his reasons against fate itself. And it has no other reasons than man and it is he who must be saved if we want to save the idea we have of life. Your smile and your disdain will tell me: what is it to save man? But I shout it to you: it's not to mutilate him, and it's to give a chance to this justice that he is the only one to conceive!
This is why we are in struggle. This is why we had to follow you first in a path that we did not want and at the end of which we, in the end, found defeat. Because your despair was your strength. From the moment it is alone, pure, sure of itself, pitiless in its consequences, despair has a merciless power. It's the one that crushed us while we hesitated and still had a look at happy images. We thought that happiness was the greatest of conquests, the one we make against the destiny that is imposed on us. Even in defeat, this regret [for happiness] did not leave us.
But you played better, you made history. And for five years, it was no longer possible to enjoy the cries of birds in the cool of the evening. We had to desperately despair. We were separated from the world, because at each moment of the world was attached a whole people of mortal images. For five years there has been no morning on this earth without agonies, evening without prisons, noon without carnage. Yes, we had to follow you. But our difficult feat was to follow you into war, and not to forget happiness. And through the clamor and the violence, we tried to keep in our hearts the memory of a happy sea, of a hill never forgotten, the smile of a dear face. Just as well, it was our best weapon, the one we will never lower. Because the day we lose it, we will be as dead as you. Simply, we now know that the weapons of happiness require a lot of time and too much blood to be forged.
We had to enter into your philosophy, agree to resemble you a little. You had chosen heroism without direction, because it is the only value that remains in a world that has lost its meaning. And having chosen it for you, you have chosen it for everyone and for us. We were forced to imitate you in order not to die. But we saw then that our superiority over you was to have a direction. Now that this is going to end, we can tell you what we have learned is that heroism is little, happiness more difficult.
Now everything should be clear to you, you know we are enemies. You are the man of injustice and there is nothing in the world that my heart can hate as much. But what was only a passion, I now know the reasons for. I fight you because your logic is as criminal as your heart. And in the horror that you have lavished on us for four years, your reason has as much a part as your instinct. This is why my condemnation will be total, you are already dead in my eyes. But at the very time when I judge your atrocious behavior, I will remember that you and we started from the same solitude, that you and we are with all of Europe in the same tragedy of intelligence. And in spite of yourselves, I will keep the name of man for you. To be faithful to our faith, we are forced to respect in you what you do not respect in others. For a long time, this was your huge advantage since you kill more easily than us. And until the end of time, it will benefit those like you. But until the end of time, we, who are not like you, will have to bear witness so that man, above his worst errors, may receive his justification and his titles of innocence. [•••]
This advantage you had over us, you see that you continue to have it. But it also makes our superiority. And it is it who now makes this night light for me. Here is our strength which is to think like you on the depth of the world, to refuse nothing of the drama which is ours, but at the same time to have saved the idea of ????man at the end of this disaster of intelligence and to draw from it the indefatigable courage of rebirths. Certainly, the accusation that we bring against the world is not lightened. We have paid too dearly for this new science for our condition to cease to seem hopeless to us. Hundreds of thousands of men murdered at daybreak, the terrible prison walls, a Europe whose earth is smoking with millions of corpses which were its children, it took all of that to pay for the acquisition of a couple of shades that may serve no purpose other than helping a few of us die better. Yes, this is hopeless. But we have to prove that we don't deserve so much injustice. This is the task.
[/i]
https://livre1.com/lis/lettres-a-un-ami-allemand/chapitre-1/
Self-preservation necessarily comes first so that difficult and brave choices can be made.
To take time to assess the dangers; real and potential for all concerned.
Self-preservation means you live on. Your girlfriend didn't. Is that why you say you failed her?
It seems to me that you had to choose to protect your own mental/physical health and emotional wellbeing knowing that you would have to live with the consequences.
Her suicide, the guilt, the memories, the emotional or psychological scarring.
That takes courage.
Quoting Olivier5
I hope you had and still have support from family, friends or any other caring and good listener...
:sparkle:
Huh, this is not a story I tell very often. I won't tell the whole thing here for sure, but thanks for the kind words, it is much appreciated.
I once told it to a girl, I mean a woman, a total stranger. This I can evoke here, it's a good and light memory of intimacy. It will help balance the other one. Sorry if I brag a little.
It was on a flight from Beijing to Bangkok. The flight had been delayed quite a bit and we had met at the odious buffet of a brutalist business lounge, a room without windows deep inside the immense airport. She was Chinese, thin like a reed, preppy in her business suit, round face, one eye a bit astray, not too much... There was something innocent in her, in that strange look, as if half of her was keeping track of the sky all the time. It gave her the face of an angel, somehow. I liked her, and more importantly, I trusted her, immediately. I could see she liked me too. I was in a suit too, preppy and all. Both in our thirties. We started chatting in the lounge, eating whatever we had picked.
I am a romantic bloke, but also a very shy guy. I don't do pick up lines. I don't do dates, they seem preordained and planned, lacking what I naively cherish in romance: surprise and spontaneity. But once in a long while, a woman has had the good sense of hitting on me.
She was not really hitting on me, not in any heavy or unladylike manner, but she was clearly interested. What was happening between us was more than just the boredom of two strangers, trying to keep each other company during a long wait, in an aggressively ugly place. We clicked, almost magically like in romance novels. The way I like it.
When the plane came we asked the steward if we could sit next to one another on these comfortable business class seats.
She was on her way back to Australia where she had come to study, and was now working in some consulting firm specialised in China. She was flying a lot in those planes. Her marriage (with an Australian) was unhappy, and without love. She had a way to say that... bowing her head, but still, in a low yet assertive, factual tone she said it, sure of her rights to sexual and romantic happiness as a young woman in this modern world.
She had been a child during the cultural revolution, she remembered a few things, first the hunger and the cold, then the violence, and the shame of her parents who were teachers, lambasted and beaten up by their students.
I told her many stories too, all real. And since back then the story of that other girl was recent, I found myself telling that one too. I emptied my soul to her, and like you guys, she forgave me and comforted me.
We kept talking of many things throughout the night. We had started to lean on one another to murmur our stories, not to wake up other travelers who had all dozed off. At some point our heads touched, and we both let them there. And then the rest of our bodies followed suit, in a progressive, timid at first then bolder and bolder exploration of one another.
All this time she was checking on the angels above with her left eye, or perhaps on God or on some Chinese equivalent. Whoever they were, I believe they were looking back upon us, because we both missed our connection in Bangkok and ended up in the same hotel room.
At some point I told her she was truly beautiful. She retorted categorically that she was not, that by Chinese standards she was ugly. She had a round face (which for some reason was bad), small tits and an eye checking on God. And yet to me, she looked like an angel.
She left the room first, without any fuss as the practical woman she really was, on her way to Sydney.
Ah yes, the old, "I love you, but you're such an idiot/loser/slut!"
There are things that one just wouldn't say to someone one loves. If a person calls you names, calls you stupid, makes disparaging remarks about your character, and so on, then they just don't love you and aren't your friend, even if they claim otherwise.
By whom were you hit more often? By men or by women?
When the nature of the (desired) power relationship is clearly spelled out ("I bring home the money, so I have the say!"), the parties involved cannot deny or ignore it anymore, and it seeps into every communication, every interaction between them.
You are forgetting the role of the power relationship between the parties involved. What is true and moral is decided by the one who has more power.
Such is life in capitalist paradise. If a person cannot live up to a certain standard, then they should not live at all. It's what the whole pro-assisted suicide culture is telling us.
The idea often put forward is that men objectify women and that women are innocent victims. I point out that this isn't the case, given that women are complicit in the objectification of women.
An abusive situation is complex and doesn't just emerge overnight. The objectification of women isn't solely the fault of men, nor of women, but both.
This is a while back by now -- A man once told me that if I don't look like Claudia Schiffer (who was then in her prime as a model) then I shouldn't expect to be loved like her. But women are like that too. For example, in Jane Austen's and the Bronte's novels you can see characters say things like, "Oh, she's lucky she found a husband at all, given how plain she is!"
I think it also has to do with women competing for men and for jobs with other women. Some say that women dress up and wear make up etc. for the sake of other women, to intimidate them and to chase them away.
A woman. Please.
You dumped her. She was not a "loved one" of yours.
It's not clear why it would be kinder then.
Generally, I find men are kinder toward women than other women. If women would be in charge, that would possibly be better for men, but worse for women.
Not only that, but also: You must have love, you must have sex. Sex is a status symbol, and also a symbol of psychological normalcy. It seems natural to resent everything that stands in one's way of obtaining status.
I’m not saying it’s acceptable, and I’m not saying they do love the person they’re fighting with - I’m saying that they could still be getting what they want from the relationship, and don’t recognise that they’re isolating that relationship in order to win an argument.
Quoting baker
By men. Definitely men.
I think the OP was pretty ridiculous, but I'll give you kudos for salvaging this thread with your compelling story of how you banged a girl cross eyed on the way to Bangkok (my spin).
But this last line above is what caught me. Hit home.
Based on what exactly? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I don’t really understand the obsession with the idea that sexual relations are somehow inextricably entwined with violence/war.
Hatred leads to violence quite often compared to anything else. Sexual relations are merely more add-ons than affecters surely?
War is more than likely started because people (men and women) often want a cause to throw themselves into. In life situations where people feel belittled and useless they crave more and more a cause to side with. War offers people an often overly simplistic way of siding with some perceived ‘good’ against an enemy.
If we look at the example of the conflict in the Ukraine we see a great many people wanting to help, and even fight and risk their lives to help. War is often brought about by a sense of higher nobility that supplants personal safety (a greater good). Sadly there don’t seem to be any black and white situations in such conflicts and inevitably the ‘noble’ cause can turn out to be tyrannical as a repercussion of investing in somethings wholeheartedly to the point where any actual ‘wrongs’ are viewed as ‘good’ again some enemy rather than measured against personal principles over the principles of the ‘cause’ being fought for (by whatever means).
Ah, now you got me. As an absolutely firm believer, it is an absolute leap of faith; no evidence required.
Although...given my compulsive obsession...
I might just fly off on a world-wide tour; its leaders, past, present and future.
A close and careful encounter with heads and balls should do the trick. So I hear.
Yup. PhD in the post. Yes indeedy :nerd:
I hold the opinion that sexual encounters are entwined with pretty much everything we endeavor in, so amity's claims seems modest to me actually.
It pains me to read that you feel like you failed her. I don't want to try and change your mind, I just want you to know, that you do not have to carry this as a failure on your part.
How about starting a war for resources (the usual reason). They said it was the main reason, or one of them, I believe? You would have to do a better job of explaining why this is. I am not saying people are not driven to violence due to some ‘sexual malfunction’ or some such thing, just that I don’t see how it can be viewed as anything like a main reason for driving someone into war/violence.
I am open to a reasoned account of why this may be so (specifically as an item that majorly entwined with war/violence).
Well, it would take a book probably and I am not going to venture it. Wars of course are fought over resources, however there is always more to it than that it seems. In war more is involved than cold calculation, but also pride, competition. The whole terminology of war is tinged with competition, victory, valour, etc. Remember the parades and the statues, the decorations, and the monuments to people who were usually ruthless killers. Now I think at the heart of all this drive for competition, the show and spectacle one makes of oneself, is to show ones virility, if not individually than socially. The language of war, the movements of its pieces, the dancing of the protagonists, are all sexually tinged metaphors.
Well, not to give the game away too much...
It includes: 1. quantitative and 2. qualitative analyses, concerning correlational coefficients and company.
My worldwide tour will be sponsored by Durex and Dulux and maybe another D, yet to be confirmed.
I do like my 3D's.
1. A [s]cunting[/s] counting game of snakes and ladders.
The roll of a dice deciding direction of play and consequences.
Up/down. Short/ long. Bold/ bendy.
Until when...hmmm...dunno. I'm absolutely determined to be [s]sexy[/s] flexi. With slow hands.
The nitty-gritty bits are coming along spicily, thanks.
* whispers, come in close.....no, CLOSER...*
Ingredients and Methodology
Poly-synthetic [s]orgasmic[/s] Organic Orrific Polyfilla ( POOP) to smooth over polytishans cracks.
Sprayed with Luminol, a floating fluorescency will then highlight [ fill in the blanks ].
It is assumed that polytitians will be somewhat paranoid.
Steps taken to ensure the process is perfectly...hmmm...processed, include:
Beauty parlours, flight [s]stimulators[/s] simulators, [s]free[/s] freely spiked [s]snorts[/s] shorts.
High-class masseurses doing the necessary with extras.
Last but not least - the Sunbed Solarium. The tube-y tantricksters telling the truth.
2. Quality street. A Global Event.
I will have direct 1:1 [s]intimate[/s] intricate [s]sexual[/s] [s]relations[/s] serious discussions with a random sample of politicians, leaders, oligarchs...any [s]old[/s] rich guy with beans to spill.
In-flight or otherwise. Hmmm. Space travel. Maybe.
Risquy recordings of...
Oh, hang on. Best stop there. I think I might have divulged too much already.
Hope I don't have to return my Durex and Dulux samples :scream:
Second-hand painted plastic for sale, anyone? :chin:
Should be a killer :wink:
Yeah, baby :cool:
You got it :up: :party:
How can anyone not see that :roll:
I read your 'show one's virility' as...
What philosophers are said to do.
No. Not navel-gazing.
'Willy-waving' :blush:
But all that's been said and done before too.
No PhD beckons there.
Because of my line of work I am offered a PhD thesis, nicely bound and printed, quite often. They are usually an uneventful read, not limited to and most certainly including, my own. Literary quality or nail biting subject matter are just not high on the priority list in general. However, if every page is as poetic as the previous post, then a masterpiece looms and I just have to get my hands on your book Amity. Tomorrow I will dive deeper and see if I can put the pieces of the puzzle together and explore more of that triple D work.
Quoting Amity
Of course philosophy is nothing exceptional. It is just performed by people who hope the penis mightier than the sword, or more likely, who have no other option. The language of philosophy is tinged with sexual metaphor as well.
@Amity @Tobias
I take more to Donna Harraway and Simone de Beauvoir. I should also still undertake a reading of Camille Paglia, but she is on my list for ages so do not know whether it will materialize.
I'm wondering though what place unadulterated fun has in competition. Some people just love what they do and become incredibly good at it. So they might like the competition but the only reason they can really compete is because they love archery, running, skating etc.
And it's not as if women don't compete, just in other ways. So I'm not convinced it's just a male thing (which is worrying if true, because that means there's no clear way to avoid wars).
*"volwassen mannen die te zwak zijn om een compromis te sluiten".
According to a recent study, many men are venting about their sexual misery even as they ignore that of women, and without ever questioning their own stereotyped requirements.
One survey too many...
While consulting the latest Wyylde / Ifop survey published yesterday, I came across this data:
48% of French men would not accept to be in a couple with a woman who does not respect certain beauty standards
45% would refuse to sleep with a woman who has body hair (little reminder: all women have body hair...)
One man out of 3 discards all overweight women
One man in 5 doesn't want a taller or older woman
1 in 10 even refuse richer women...
Seriously guys, that's a lot to process.
Personally I have no problem with men having standards and sticking to them, it's heroic to have convictions. No, my problem is that then these same guys come crying about their sexual misery - poor little rabbits. Because that's the crazy situation we're in: men complaining about not sleeping with enough women when they themselves don't want to sleep with enough women.
In the United States, there is a word to describe this situation: entitlement. It means that we feel that good things are owed to us - a kind of spoiled child complex.
Luckily, a simple economic theory provides an answer! More precisely, the theory of supply and demand.
In sex, men describe, and lament, an asymmetry: they demand more sex than women are willing to give. Okay. Here we have two solutions:
The first: that demanders lower their level of demand because when you can't get what you want, you settle for what you can. Unfortunately, in the case of the sexual market, men prefer not to have anything at all (complain about it and bore us with their frustration).
Second solution: when the demand is higher than the supply, we could increase the supply, that is, increase the desire of women. To achieve this, it is very simple, men must make themselves more desirable or make us want to sleep with them more.
And here, how to say this nicely... Picky guys are already not very attractive. But the survey released yesterday shows that quite a few of these big guys are also bad in bed:
27% of French men would refuse to use a sextoy to make their partner cum more easily
Another 27% would refuse to learn how to make their partner cum
Allow me to summarize. When these men deign to have sex with a woman, they don't even want to give her pleasure. No wonder we live in anti-erotic times: when I hear that, I want to enter the orders...
Okay, that leaves us with a majority of potentially frequentable men, still. Nevertheless, if you take out a quarter of bad sexers, and half of the guys with unrealistic standards, then a lot of women get left out in the cold.
And for someone like me, it becomes very complicated. Three-quarters of men refuse open relationships, four out of five men refuse threesomes with two men. What am I going to do with my weekends?
What is crazy in this story is that men are always talking about their sexual misery, without ever realizing the misery they create in women. What do you think, guys? That we don't want to make love, that we don't want to be carried away by desire? Well, yes, we do! But men still have to make themselves worthy of it, somehow, and for that we have to progress on two axes: the desire they feel, and the desire they arouse.
"How can I save my little boy, from Oppenheimer's deadly toy"
Russians - Sting
Quoting Benkei
I think unadulterated 'fun', aka love, lays at the heart of our being in the world. The world is extraordinarily meaningful to us. And yes, sex is a lot of fun as well. That is why is is often referred to as playing. Someone who wants it is often described as 'naughty'.
Quoting Benkei
Me neither. Women are sexual beings to exactly the same level as men, at least as far as I know. The sexual by the way, does not have any base connotations for me. I think it is rather exalted actually. It shakes the world. So for me it binds the most serious, 'le petit mort', with the most innocent ' playing'. Giver and destroyer of life.
Ah, yes. Wyylde. Motto - Join the Pleasure Party. "Wyylde is the first social network where you can express your sexuality freely." Here, take a look at the source of your data:
https://www.wyylde.com/en-us/
Nobody says that it's solely the fault of men...just that men carry most of the blame, being the ones that benefit.
Not a small amount of radical feminists are hostile to women who beautify themselves, or act in porn, or work as prostitutes, but the rage and fury is directed primarily at the men who are the ones benefiting from the system and perpetuating it.
That women can be complicit in their own oppression should not mask the fact of who is the exploiter. When the Nazis persecuted Jews in the Polish ghettos, they forced the Jews to set up Judenrätes, which were made up of Jewish people, but did the bidding of the Nazis as intermediaries. A similar thing happened in the concentration camps and death camps, where the Kapos (prisoners themselves) were used as intermediary administrators. It was easier for the Nazis to control the Jews by using Jewish intermediaries. These Jewish intermediaries often ended up being hated more than the Nazis who used them; in this way the Nazis achieved a certain degree of distance from their crimes.
Similarly, women in patriarchy is often used as intermediaries when men want to control women. So for instance FGM in Africa is frequently done by women, even though it is clearly an operation done for the benefit of men. Commercials for beauty products aimed at women are always narrated by women.
There's always token women put into a place of intermediary power in order to dispense patriarchal law. This is precisely why equality is not good enough; women participating in a patriarchal institution doesn't stop it from being a patriarchal institution.
Quoting Olivier5
:100:
:smile:
The gay factor and gender identity issues are something I've been thinking about, strangely enough.
After reading the fascinating discussion started by @unenlightened with excellent contributions:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12687/matrilineal-matriarchy
It is not something I've ever read about in any detail. And I probably won't now.
But so glad to see an open and non-aggressive conversation. A willingness from @unenlightened to consider all perspectives; others sharing their knowledge and experience :sparkle:
For example:
Quoting unenlightened
However, it seems to still be about an either/or arrangement. Patriarchy v Matriarchy.
I don't think this is helpful. Indeed, doesn't it play into the fear of males that women are taking control and being less than subservient? Women have their roles to play; the main one being a mother?
The 'gayness' and the horror of being seen as less than masculine. Not to mention the religious angle.
"In God We Trust" - pick your big, bad goodie. What gender must it be to be all-powerful?
The cartoon: "Anyone who doesn't want to go to war is gay!" has a ring of truth, doesn't it?
From that discussion, @I like sushi
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/669572
Quoting Benkei
I haven't read enough about female/male/other differences.
Not sure that philosophy has anything to offer in how to avoid wars or even domestic violence.
So many levels and aspects to consider in the fields of science, psychology, sociology...
It is one thing to have the mental and psychological power to enhance wellbeing in self, family, community- when it comes to country and global competition for resources that's another ball game.
The thought processes and 'reasoning' behind the violent...how can we ever rectify the ways of thinking in extreme groups? Even on TPF, we can see it play out. Vicious words flying instead of bullets.
Perhaps all this is necessary and who we are...we rise to the challenges...
It is from and to the extreme sections of society that would-be dictators seem to draw and give their power. Until hatred becomes mainstream, or so it seems.
Why and how do we allow the extremes to overwhelm the majority? Don't most desire peace?
Perhaps not...
I think most people if asked, would say that it is young males ( 20-ish) who are manipulated by the more powerful to carry out their fantasies of world domination. They kill and are killed.
Quoting Benkei
But not always.
Males with extreme beliefs.
Some act as lone wolves or gang up in 'brotherhood' to get attention or a sense of belonging.
Some commit suicide after committing atrocities. Where do you see females doing that?
Think of the school killings - the causes - so many by young men thwarted, rejected.
Women are still seen as weak and men as strong.
"Don't be a big girl's blouse!"; a father to his 5yr old son crying, after a fall from a wall.
The phrase denotes a man regarded as weak, cowardly or oversensitive.
Attitudes are ingrained. Any change can be feared and desired in turn.
As to the prevention of war.
That will never happen as long as profits can be made...
It seems hopeless.
It is horrific what is happening now.
Unbelievable that humanity doesn't seem to have learned a damned thing.
Or if it has, can't do anything about it.
Sounds like a plan.
But isn't that all weakness? Not being able to change your mind because of what? Extreme beliefs to me seem to be about clinging to what you think you know. In brotherhood we just do what everybody does because it feels safe.
Not that I necessarily need to defend my one liner because that's just an attempt to trying to make part of the world accessible to my daughter, to give a frame in which to think about a war. There's more to it.
A purely defensive war or a war to remove real evil, you know the level that makes you sick in your stomach and retch, those no longer seem to be related to competition. And that's probably because there are alternative base emotions than those related to sexual urges.
So disgust is usually a strong moral indicator as well, at the same time a lot of disgust is socially conditioned. Need to be careful with that one.
Then there's fear, which I can imagine playing a big part in the side of the Russians in the last war.
But where to go from there? What does it help if we can reduce causes for war to this. We're not capable of teaching the world to have healthy reactions to emotions. I have plenty of problems with it myself. Installed an app "in love while parenting" to become emotionally more verbal and react more appropriately to my kids in stress situations. Even in that research you do well when you react in the correct way about 1 in 3 times, which seems like we're all, as a species, lowballing our interpersonal interactions anyway.
Quoting Amity
And actually makes men oversensitive to feeling weak, rejected or unmanly when grown, resulting in very unhealthy reactions to them when they expedience those feelings. Repression is just a shit way of dealing with any emotion.
One cannot simultaneously love someone and beileve they are mad. One of the two is not true.
Women. Absolutely by women.
I heard from a facilitator of women's self-defense classes that according to their internal study, in about 50% of the cases of violence of men against women, it was the woman who hit the man first (and things then escalated from there).
And people who use such language should be regarded as arbiters of righteousness ........
List three examples when the lowering of standards led to a better result.
Besides, nowadays, we have more taboos around sexuality than ever. We are under the dictate of discussing the matter, but are allowed to do so only superficially.
Of course he failed her. She risked health and life so that she could keep the relationship with him at all, and it wasn't enough.
Or else, it's a matter of being self-confident, which is a good thing.
I doubt this generally holds true. Group psychology isn't just about mediating fear, it's also about achieving mental and practical outcomes that a single person could not.
Do provide three examples of such wars "to remove real evil".
And the "healthy reaction" to any emotion is to be passive. "Look, there's a man setting my house on fire! I feel so afraid! I must have a healthy reaction to fear!"
What we're apparently not capable of is to treat eachother with common decency and generally refuse to act in good faith. It's this lack of common decency and the insistence in bad faith that progressively worsen the situation until it deteriorates into armed conflict.
Self-confidence is about problem ownership, admitting mistakes and being prepared to let go of beliefs when they turn out to be wrong. There's no self-confidence in dogma, only a failure to think.
Quoting baker
There can be cooperation without the trappings of inside jokes, secret handshakes and cordoning of us and them. The problem about brotherhood is that it excludes others.
Quoting baker
Every war fought by indigenous people against European invaders plus Hitler.
Quoting baker
How does this even relate to my post? A healthy reaction is acknowledgment of the existence of the emotion and for your surroundings to accept that existence. So if someone if afraid, you don't tell them there's nothing to fear, because that's a dick move.
One person's "cognitive rigidity" is another person's "steadfastness" and "self-confidence".
Who gets to define the terms? Humanist liberals with their particular agenda?
Why should that be a problem? You exclude others.
Ah, the noble savages argument.
You're reflecting an uncritical acceptance of liberalist pop-psychology.
Why would one have to tell another person anything when they are afraid?
History is full of it.
Quoting baker
Intolerance of intolerance isn't exclusion but nice try.
Quoting baker
No, a ius ad bellum argument. All wars of conquest were unjust, even then by our own standards. But again, history, which you've must have missed in class.
Quoting baker
I'm reflecting the latest research on the matter and you offer nothing substantive in return.
Quoting baker
Indeed why? Shutting up would already be an improvement but unfortunately society is filled with people telling people what they are supposed to feel, supposed to look like and supposed to do. Usually starting with your parents.
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
Absolutely brilliantly articulated!
Seriously? “She hit me first” - that’s the argument? What are you, five? If men would rather not be hit by people, then they should stop pretending it doesn’t hurt. If it hurt, then for fuck’s sake TELL her that it hurt. Use your words. This is not a test of bravado.
If someone hits a person who is physically stronger, the implication is NOT the same as a physically stronger person hitting them. This is true regardless of gender. If she’s emotionally destroying him with her fists, then he needs to tell her that, rather than pretend there’s no emotional attachment to destroy.
This goes back to my original argument about acknowledging the qualitative aspect of the relationship.
That's an odd belief, that one cannot love a mad person.
My sister-in-law is turning mad.
She is a very nice person, mother of two, hard working, funny. Covid came; she found herself stuck in circumstances that took a toll on her mental health. She blew a gasket; invented herself an alternative world.
She has lost her job. She has attacked people in the street. Now she is a diagnosed paranoid, takes medication, is followed by a psychiatrist. It is a tragedy.
But you know what? Her kids still love her; her husband still loves her; and I still love her. So something must be wrong with your theory.
It's incoherent to love that which one hates or despises or otherwise considers wrong or substandard.
*sigh*
It's not an argument, it's an anecdotal estimate by a self-defense professional.
Actual studies of these phenomena are relatively few, because the issue is so loaded, so anecdotal evidence is often all we have. Generally, victimology brings up many concepts and study findings that are unpalatable to many people.
*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*
A fight is a fight. In any fight, it is assumed that the one who hits first is willing to fight. Regardless of perceived or real differences in physical prowess and fighting skill.
It's misleading to frame the matter as "man vs. woman". It's fighter vs. fighter, or fighter vs. non-fighter.
Superficial and stereotyped relationships come at a price.
Full of what? Answers to "Who gets to define the terms?" ?
*sigh*
This is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler. There should be more to one's moral arguments than "gut feeling".
Only some of the latest research. There is other research that says that people are naturally resilient and that much of what psychology at large has been doing is actually useless or even counterproductive.
It wasn't a rhetorical question.
Can't you see that your "latest research on the matter" is doing the same thing -- telling people what to think, feel, speak, and do -- except that it does so under the guise of "science" and "latest research".
Another example of ignoring the existing qualitative aspects of a relationship to frame one’s position as ‘logical’. There is no logical position in a power differential. Anyone who ignores this is kidding themselves to think they’re in a fair fight.
And I didn’t frame it as ‘man vs woman’. Read it again.
*sigh*
Quoting baker
You said:
Quoting Possibility
In specific response to this, which is ALREADY framed as man vs woman:
Quoting baker
Quoting baker
Assumed by who? By the one who got hit?
Quoting Possibility
It's either true or false. I don't wanna go to war. Not for my fucking country, not for the gods, not in the name of science, I just don't want to. I like to fight sometimes but not with science-based technology. I'm nòt gay. So there can't be a ring of truth in the cartoon. But I get your intention. The cartoon should have been called "Most people who don't want to go to war are gay".
Men don't rule the roost and women aren't lowest on the totem pole as it were.
The reality is women aren't weak and men strong, women are only less powerful than men. In other words, females are simply lower in the pecking order, they are henpecking nevertheless.
Women, keep looking up!
So you don't know what ius ad bellum is. You do realise this reply just makes you sound like an idiot, right?
:up:
If a woman hit me repeatedly and wouldn’t stop I would hit her back - but not full force.
In any relationship between a man and woman if one hits the other end the relationship instantly.
In a relationship between members of the same sex the dynamics are different so violence might help relieve the situation and so I wouldn’t say it is an instant ‘end the relationship’ scenario in every case.
Note: Not quite sure what this has to do with reasons for men hating women (who hits who)?
The reasons men may hate a particular woman is pretty much the same as for why they might hate a particular man. Hating one woman does not make anyone a ‘woman hater’ … I find the idea rather ridiculous and if such a degree of hatred towards a woman existed it would likely stem from a poor relationship with their mother rather than some association with sexual intercourse.
Of course some extreme ‘feminist’ types would then accuse me of ‘blaming women’ for men’s said ‘hatred’ of women. That is nonsense. A person causes someone to hate not an entire category of people. If someone has poor relations with some/any category of people then it is fairly easy to understand why they may overextend such feelings.
My wife hit me once, I told her if she did it again I'd get a divorce. Never happened again. Our dustbin has a dent though.
If there are weapons involved then a light kick or punch is fine.
If you’re trying to make out I would happily pound someone in the face repeatedly then absolutely not. Lethal force is possible for both sexes but more likely for men as they generally possess greater strength. If we were talking about some muscle-bound woman who was adept at cage fighting then I would likely reply in kind to a punch to the face. It is a matter of judging what is appropriate in the circumstances whether who you face is male or female, but I would repeat that same sex has a different dynamic for sure because men are generally brought up to protect women not assault them, and women often seek protection and security from men rather than the other way around.
And this ambiguity of language was why I didn’t bring it up initially. When does a disagreement or argument turn into a ‘fight’? Who makes that call, and is it okay to assume another’s intentions based solely on your own perspective? Another reason to use your words.
Quoting I like sushi
If someone was hitting someone who was clearly stronger, I would expect the stronger person to find a way to restrain their attacker rather than retaliate. Even if it’s not full force, trading blows doesn’t stop the violence, it only escalates it. It’s a matter of intelligence and self-awareness, not dominance.
Quoting I like sushi
Not going to argue with that - violence is a deal-breaker for me, and I wouldn’t expect my partner to tolerate any from me, either.
Quoting I like sushi
Nothing. Baker’s response to me saying I’ve definitely been hit by more men than women was to imply that women were statistically more violent than men, because apparently it’s the women who start more domestic violence incidents - by hitting the man first. Couldn’t let that ridiculous comment slide.
Aa for ‘fight’ it is not a technical term. It can mean ‘verbal exchange,’ ‘physical exchange’ or even ‘personal struggle’ in an abstract sense. An argument can be a fight. I would guess any possible distinction would come about due to the level of passion and hostility involved.
I can disagree with my partner but that doesn’t mean we fight about it. I can fight with my partner too but we have never exchanged physical blows or had any kind of hostile physical interaction. I would never raise a hand to her and she would never raise a hand to me either. I know this.
Anyway, why do women hate men? Is it alos because of ‘sex’?
The point is that in almost all circumstances of someone hitting you, you can walk away. If there are weapons involved you run away. Only an idiot overestimating his martial abilities will try to fight. Thanks to 10 years of Aikido (and some other martial arts) I know 12 ways of disarming someone with a knife, depending on whether they are in front or behind me, but I will fucking run if I have a chance.
Sadly social media is filled with the fantasy fighting an armed person bare handed is realistic or even smart.
People avoid crazy people. Derren Brown had a good way of dealing with such by talking nonsense so someone.
Yesss!!
Let me ask you something: do you really believe that women are only less powerful than men?
Do you really believe that females are lower in the pecking order?
Maybe it is just a word to you but there is something quite different between a female and a woman, yet you seem to use them interchangeably. What makes you use on or the other?
I think it is rather audacious to suggest for "Women, keep looking up?"
What do you think we are going to be looking at if we did?
Don't get me wrong and please don't judge me. Given the current parameters of my CPU and the data at my disposal, which I analyzed as best as I could, the output is as you've read in my previous post: women are only less powerful than women, not weak.
Would you like to update my system? I'd be more than happy to run your app, if one's on offer and if you like?
Be gentle now...
Let me start with your last comment first. Why would you need me to be gentle? Are you vulnerable right now?
Because you are not asking for or requesting for gentility, you are instructing me to approach your thoughts as though they are delicate in nature. Why is that?
Thank you for repeating yourself, I appreciate the reminder.
Agent Smith, you are a human which means you were born into this world, right?
Has anyone ever tried to come at you while your Mom was around?
Have you ever tried to get between a Mother Bear and one of her cubs?
Either literally or metaphorically?
I have. Both ends of it. I have encountered a Mother Bear and her cubs, right here in Arizona. I was never so thankful to be in an automobile but it would have been a shit ton safer if it wasn't a convertible.
I have also released Mother Bear in protection of my own cubs.
Please, understand this respectively, there is no hu(man) more powerful than a Momma Bear whose cubs are being threatened. The explosive release of that power is born into every female and can be brought out when demanded. If it is a Momma Bear? We know where that power is and we are not about wasting it because it can take you (us) to our death.
Speaking of death: do you know who Momma Bear will go to battle for and die for?
Having said that:
I really would appreciate your addressing my questions as previously postedQuoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I don’t really think men hate women because of ‘sex’ - I think some will say that - and even convince themselves that it’s true - because it’s one aspect where it’s considered ‘socially acceptable’ to have no control. Women and sex are too often the dumping ground for a man’s fears and desires. He more likely hates not being able to explain or rationalise his own feelings. I think women can feel this way, too - it’s just less prevalent because most (not all) learn to talk about their feelings without needing to rationalise or ’fix’ them. It’s also possible for men to hate this social expectation that they should somehow not feel.
I think women can often hate men because of a social expectation to be responsible for keeping his fears and desires in check as well as her own. But I also think a woman can be labelled ‘man-hating’ if she refuses to consider his unclaimed fears or desires in choosing her own actions, often to the point where she starts to believe it herself, or at least finds it more authentic to just accept the label, rather than try to prove otherwise.
I think that men need to learn to recognise when they’re afraid, or when they’re attracted - and own these feelings as such, instead of projecting them as forces out of their control. And women need to learn to give men space to talk safely about their feelings of fear or attraction without assuming they intend to act on them.
Basically, a modicum of respect for a fellow human being. If lines are crossed insults and violence can be a necessary deterrent whether or not we view it as an ideal place to arrive at.
In todays internet/social media age there is a rather noisy minority ready to do away with context which does nothing other than conflate the problems in society by creating imaginary narratives that are used to fuel hatred.
Note: Understanding something does not mean we need to agree with it. It just serves us better to understand I feel.
Look at this [math]\downarrow[/math]
Your point?
It seems to me to be deflection which is nothing more than a distraction.
What are you trying to say in posting that video?
Why all of a sudden is it "Ma'am"?
I have no idea, must be some kinda Freudian defense mechanism.
Anyway, if nonvegetarianism is immoral, then women are immoral (too), oui? Video evidence for reference. The poor chicken is lower on the hackliste, and everyone above it in the food chain is, well, killin' and eatin' it. How could anyone, the fairer sex included, justify a demand for equality under these circumstances? We're always lookin' up, look down for a change if only to not come off as a hypocrite (sorry Neil deGrasse Tyson).
I want women to lead humanity, they're our best bet. First thing that needs to be done is for them to get their act together.
Wtf?
Get our act together?
Good day.
Yes! Better not actually. Let's just leave things as they are.
And that is what you wanted the whole time once I called you out.
Be careful out there, I am but one woman.
Draw your own conclusions.
Helen was one woman. Trojan war!
Sita was one woman. Indo-Lankan war!
:smile:
If we have to fight for equality, I mean literally, tooth and nail, all's good!
I don't think it was supposed to be funny. If it was a rib-tickler for you, well and good.
?
Everything else I agree with, except this. I honestly don’t believe that ANY violence between humans as self-conscious beings is necessary. That doesn’t mean I haven’t resorted to the occasional insult or forceful hand myself - but I recognise (sometimes after the fact) that if I can’t interact without insult or violence, then there’s something about the relationship that is being ignored. Violence doesn’t solve that problem, only awareness.
More like gynophobia than misogyny, but hey, it feels on point.
You haven't seen (real) war!
:naughty:
I’m aware they exist - I’m saying they aren’t necessary.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You put yourself quite 'into it' as it were, just now.
More broadly speaking, it is a touchy topic. Easy to turn into a purposeless philosophical roundabout through ad hominem. If you want to talk about women as equals, allegedly, you will not use their physical attributes, of which they had no hand in creating or forming, as a form of identity.
In short, if you criticize a male when he is wrong, which though "being wrong" is subjective can become objective (or at least more so) when it can be measured and compared against real world statistics and professed rights and wrongs (morals) of the individual you are speaking to, one is not "out of line" by suggesting you can criticize a female equally.
Now, this is not to ignore the immoral acts that in my opinion have always amounted to mental illness (and now do so legally), ie. (abuse of women, slavery, violence in any form) that to this day impact certain demographics, simply that things are much better than they were before and such facts need be considered.
How do you exist lol.
Like what do you do for a living? Legitimately curious.
That is one thing a machine could never offer I suppose. Entertainment. Morbid or not.
This is absolutely insane. A woman choosing to not sleep with you is not an act of revenge; you just feel so because you are drowned in entitlement. This is the craziest shit I've heard in a long time. Entitled people always think someone is withholding something from them in specific with malicious intent just because they can't obtain that thing by organic, fair or natural means - then they think everyone must feel like they do.
necessary: (of a concept, statement, etc.) inevitably resulting from the nature of things, so that the contrary is impossible.
Humans naturally have the collaborative capacity, at least, for sufficient awareness prior to any interaction to entertain the possibility of alternatives to war.
Quoting Cobra
I can see how my choice of words could give the impression that this is what I was trying to say. What I really should have said is that men will perceive (projection) women as intentionally trying to elicit sexual feelings just in order to frustrate them, so they gain some kind of power, or satisfy some sadistic desire to see men writhe in sexual frustration. Whether a woman is actually trying to do this is irrelevant to the dynamic - men will feel that women are doing this on purpose, to "hurt" them, or to "get back" at them in the perpetual battle of the sexes.
Men will grow to hate women's bodies for the power they hold over him. They will resent women for just being in their world. Hence why women sometimes feel the need to dress conservatively, in order to feel safe. Just as Brownmiller said, rape is a looming threat that men use on women.
This dynamic is probably in most cases confined entirely to within a man's mind, which is dominated by numerous anxieties and fears - castration being just one of them. I do think that sometimes personal choices of appearance can be deliberately political. If men hold most of the power, then a woman can use the male gaze against the gazer, if she chooses to. It is conceivable that some women do intentionally try to turn on men so they can gain some kind of leverage or power; they know how to play the game. But I don't think this what usually happens. The dynamic is usually a completely psychotic fantasy of men that has no basis in reality.
Is this supposed to appeal to me because she's a woman and some feminist? Don't do that.
Drowkin was batshit crazy and most sane people do not care about her except men trying to prove some point, 99% of the time.
Quoting _db
No, they do not. Men get frustrated because they are sexually attracted to her. They then either pursue her and get rejected or belittle her because she ruins their idealized view of a woman he made up in his head. He gets pissed because he feels entitled to ownership of the woman he desires and her sexuality.
If not that, they get frustrated because they perceive themselves a certain way, and project it on to her, such as being below her, thus never taking the approach to begin with because she's too hot to handle and only has sex with the man she CHOOSES to, then get pissed at her because of their own issues, one being he thinks the likelihood of him being chosen by her is slim.
This is why deranged men that can't get women or sex promote sex socialism and taking women back to the kitchen, while sexually active happy men do not and support more liberal freedoms for women.
This post is just a bunch of it's a woman's fault because she has freedom of choice and that men want to rape or kill her and control her body, which is absolutely insane. You should be advocating for these men to get professional help and be better humans. There are men like this, but it's nowhere near a significant amount and when it is it is socialized into them usually by one deranged male.
Quoting _db
No it is not. It is completely relevant because it demonstrates a small subset of sadistic men that desire to harm women physically and emotionally without reason that women should actively know the signs of and avoid. Especially since you are making the argument these men exist in tangible reality as a commonality and interact with women often.
And this is why Dworkin is batshit crazy, because she attempts to argue that all men are sadists and instills false insecurity and false fears into otherwise, healthy women.
Quoting _db
Yes, because they are not getting laid and feel entitled to women's bodies. Then they make up a false scenario that women are depriving them intentionally and that men are an oppressed class because sex socialism is not a thing.
Women do not dress conservatively to feel safe from men because they are men, they dress conservatively to avoid a specific small group of people that EXCLUSIVELY TARGET women to induce harm and/or unnecessary unwanted attention.
Quoting _db
Wtf! No it isn't. When it comes to violence and sexual abuse there is no significant difference between the genders,in that other men, boys and children are also targets, sometimes exclusively, by this very same subset of deranged entitled sadistic men. The rape in male prison is sky high, precisely because this subset of the same men target others to inflict harm through entitlement. These same "threats" also work on men and boys/children, the only difference is men are less proactive about it because again, more male holier than thou no one can touch me and the world owes me mentalities.
Brownmiller sounds like she is projecting her own neurosis on other women, which is why Dworkin is not regarded as any significant feminist figure outside of a laughing stock.
Dworkin was an important figure in the second-wave. Intercourse is a classic. I love her writing. That is why I mentioned her. I dunno why you think she was batshit, I think she was brilliant.
Quoting Cobra
I have not once said that any of this is women's fault. It is a male phenomenon that victimizes women.
Quoting Cobra
If you have a reference to where Dworkin says this, I'd like to read it. Because AFAIK, while Dworkin was very hostile to male rapist ideology, she didn't just think "all men bad".
The percentage of men that graduate from sexual frustration into full-blown sexual assault and rape is of course much less than the percentage of men that merely feel resentment, but never have any intention of acting on it - though in certain circumstances (like in war), the social barriers preventing this can crumble, and what happens are atrocities that include violence against women, like the Rape of Nanking, or My Lai. Iris Chang said it well: the veneer of civilization is thin.
Quoting Cobra
:up:
Quoting Cobra
I just don't see this group as small; I see it as quite large and spread out. Some women might want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that "other" men are like this, but not any of the men in their lives...but that's probably not true. Being a man might give me more opportunities to notice this, because a lot of times men won't talk about this stuff around women.
I think there is a facade that is kept up by a lot of men to try to convince women that they don't have sexual predatory thoughts and feelings; some are better at it than others. Conceptually sequestering this phenomenon to a small group of perverts is a neat way to avoid having to critically analyze the culture that promotes it. It redirects the blame to an invisible boogeyman.
Quoting Cobra
Actually, the dynamics of homosexual prison rape often mirror the dynamics of rape outside of prison. In situations in which women are not accessible, a portion of the male population are used as surrogates. Brownmiller has a lengthy chapter on this, which is very illuminating.
We can agree to disagree. I think most women suffer more from biological neurosis more often than not stemming from being of smaller stature. Yes, large scary men "scary me" but I can rationalize it's not because he wants to rape and kill me and take my womanhood, and even if he does, the likelihood of him doing that is slim. Your dad is more likely to rape you than some man at a grocery store.
I can say this as a woman because I spend ample amount of time around them, and most are neurotic. You underestimate what women are aware of and give a crap about. Women are aware that men thinking about ripping them a new asshole, and are aware of male sexuality and sexual nature, probably their own male partner, they just don't give a crap because there is no need to or no real threat.
Dressing conservatively makes no difference at all if you are an attractive woman. Women know this already and get approached by losers daily, especially if you are in a city area, this is nothing new. It just is irrational to give a crap about that in a civilized society. Most men are not potential rapists and lack the necessary characteristics to be one, just like "dangerous incels" are rare.
Even times of war, the whole US Army doesn't go on raping spree. It's still the same small subset of men, that still may increase in number, causing a large amount of damage. For every woman that's killed, some man just died by the bullet of another man.
I don't see your point making this some big thing, the only takeaway from your post is that men are inherently crazy and women are just collateral damage.