Discussion Can we please talk about the increase of misogyny on this board?

[Sleeper System]

My point was that the very people who claim to be coming with "facts and logic" are doing anything but.

But yeah, toss out the intentional misrepresentations and snark.

Next will be the false accusations and gaslighting.

Because people who operate from falsehood cannot ever argue in good faith.

Facts and logic can only be countered... by facts... and logic. So if something someone claims to be factual is wrong then you have to prove it's not factual. Just saying it isn't holds no weight to someone with a brain.
I was pointing out the contradiction in your statement.
Problem is that people can't handle being wrong. It means they didn't think their point of view through enough.
So they'll try to fight facts with psychology and warp what's actually going on. You can see it playing out right here right now before your very eyes in this thread lol smh... i think it's nap time. Got alot of depravity to commit this week. (heavy eyeroll)

 

[Brown-Jacket Revy]

I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree with the notion that all they know is depravity, they are capable of love, but love hurts too much for some to risk it and they turn cold as a result.

You say that because you want to be one of them.

And even they don't accept you as one of them, as evidenced in the thread.

People with T coursing through their body psychologically operate vastly differently than us.

 

[MatrixPrisoner]

 

[Sleeper System]

I never said that innocent people cannot be charged. They found women in his home and he had taken their passports so they couldn't leave, there is proof that he did his crimes.

Please stop. Even now you're still talking with no information. This is again how I know this is all a waste of time.

 

[Brown-Jacket Revy]

Facts and logic can only be countered... by facts... and logic. So if something someone claims to be factual is wrong then you have to prove it's not factual. Just saying it isn't holds no weight to someone with a brain.
I was pointing out the contradiction in your statement.
Problem is that people can't handle being wrong. It means they didn't think their point of view through enough.
So they'll try to fight facts with psychology and warp what's actually going. You can see it playing out right here right now before your very eyes in this thread lol smh... i think it's nap time. Got alot of depravity to commit this week. (heavy eyeroll)

Listen, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you.

You engaged with me in this thread, not the other way around, so clearly you felt you had something to release.

And you've already come to the table believing you've won when there was no debate, lol.

You haven't stated any facts.

So what is there to say? You have your perspective, I have mine. But you don't get to say what you want, but then get mad when I do the same.

 

[Spades]

You say that because you want to be one of them.

And even they don't accept you as one of them, as evidenced in the thread.

People with T coursing through their body psychologically operate vastly differently than us.

I don't wish to be accepted as one of them, I've accepted the fact that they will always see me as less than because they have to make the choice to change for the betterment of themselves and others just like I did when I believed the same things they did.

Cis men do not operate any differently, they are capable of rational thought, love, kindness, and insight much like cis women are because they are people much like you and I.

I used to believe this to be the case, that all cis men were monsters when I first started learning about social issues, but my current boyfriend who is cis is the most empathetic and kind person I've ever known. And as I befriended more men, I learned that the majority of men are not unkind creatures.

 

[RainAndSadness]

The moment I read the word "misogyny" and " Sex Trafficer Andrew Tate" you lost all credibility and made reading the rest of your discussion pointless. I wont waste time discussing this other than to say that if you cared at all about the cold hard truth and the facts about what you are trying to speak on then you would do some real research and find the distinctions between, context, reading between lines, entertainment, and common sense. That is all.

Dude this thread really isn't the right place to do a debate bro, it's completely irrelevant if you believe Andrew Tate is a criminal or not - it has nothing to do with the message of this thread. Back to topic or I'll hand our warnings. And that applies to every single member who is participating in this topic.

 

[Spades]

Dude this thread really isn't the right place to do a debate bro, it's completely irrelevant if you believe Andrew Tate is a criminal or not. Back to topic or I'll hand our warnings. And that applies to every single member who is participating in this topic.

Sorry, I can delete the thread if you'd like.

 

[Sleeper System]

Listen, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you.

You engaged with me in this thread, not the other way around, so clearly you felt you had something to release.

And you've already come to the table believing you've won when there was no debate, lol.

You haven't stated any facts.

So what is there to say? You have your perspective, I have mine. But you don't get to say what you want, but then get mad when I do the same.

You must not know how forums work. You don't need a reason to engage with anyone other than simple participation. Don't flatter yourself. You didn't say anything so profound that I was moved by universal forces to respond. Funny enough, this is very much in character with the self centered me me me prospective you present.

Yup. I implied this was not a debate from the beginning. This was in my opinion a venting post. Pointing out the obvious but okay.

I've stated many facts. Find something I said that you don't agree with and I will sit you down and write on the chalkboard the lessons for the day.

Yes. The one thing you said that I agree with. I'm not mad at you or what you're saying. I don't presume to think you're mad either but I guess the word mad is a trigger word for emotionally erratic or something. Not over here. Over here we stay calm and sip french vanilla latte and listen to alice in chains on repeat.

Dude this thread really isn't the right place to do a debate bro, it's completely irrelevant if you believe Andrew Tate is a criminal or not - it has nothing to do with the message of this thread. Back to topic or I'll hand our warnings. And that applies to every single member who is participating in this topic.

I Agree. Disengaging.

 

[Brown-Jacket Revy]

Find something I said that you don't agree with and I will sit you down and write on the chalkboard the lessons for the day.

Oh, trust me, baby I've heard it all. I don't need you to school me. I'm good.

 

[Spades]

Please stop. Even now you're still talking with no information. This is again how I know this is all a waste of time.

There are articles upon articles explaining the information in detail. But what's the point of even continuing this discussion if all you've done is call me emotional and tell me how much of a woman I am? You will not listen to me no matter what I say because I was born a woman. You're letting your own preconceived bias get in the way of this discussion.

You're still being very vague and that's not helping me understand your point of view.

I asked for videos you claimed debunked what I was saying, and you provided none, I've asked you many questions and all you do is ignore them and talk about something else I said. Why? Why are you gish galloping? Why can you not be direct? If you want me to understand, then explain in detail, no more vague allusions to points you never made.

 

[Celerity]

I haven't noticed an uptick, but I get where you are coming from to an extent. In all the arguments I have seen and participated in, I have found that the best option is to ignore them. Unfortunately, there is very little room for common ground in this argument from either side. There are a few self-proclaimed incels here to whom I wouldn't really apply the label, and I can talk to those guys. They have empathy and are pretty evenhanded. For everyone else, it's really better to disengage.

 

[Golden Slumbers]

The bitterness that (socially anxious, probably autistic) incel men have with women is that the social norms of dating are men chasing women. They have probably never been propositioned romantically in their lives, and the lack of confidence they have from this prevents them from approaching women themselves. They're jealous of the woman's position to refuse or accept advances, rather than have to make them.

My theory is, they fail to realize that the opposite "femcel" problem (men only approaching you for sex, and never a relationship) is just as depressing a position to be in. In good faith I'm assuming that OP is a transgender man (skimmed the post). Did you have this problem with men? I think this is a problem with empathy on both sides.

 

[Sleeper System]

There are articles upon articles explaining the information in detail. But what's the point of even continuing this discussion if all you've done is call me emotional and tell me how much of a woman I am? You will not listen to me no matter what I say because I was born a woman. You're letting your own preconceived bias get in the way of this discussion.

You're still being very vague and that's not helping me understand your point of view.

I asked for videos you claimed debunked what I was saying, and you provided none, I've asked you many questions and all you do is ignore them and talk about something else I said. Why? Why are you gish galloping? Why can you not be direct? If you want me to understand, then explain in detail, no more vague allusions to points you never made.

Abort. Abort. Abort. lol Gish Galloping is a new term I have not heard before.

 

[SexyIncél]

This is an open discussion so if you have any counter points or anything you wish to add that I missed or skimmed over, please do so.

And if I got anything wrong, then please correct me and I will apologize.

I'm again, still very new to this all and my hands are shaking as I type this. I hate confrontation but this has really been bugging me lately and I can't not say something otherwise it'll just continue to happen.

Some parts of this post may be worded a bit harshly to prove a point, though these moments are few and far between, I tried my best not to be overly mean but please let me know if I've crossed a line.

I respect your openmindedness, and think you make good points, and think people should reciprocate even if they disagree with your specific points! (But many won't, so man up & fuck the haters, haha)

I don't have much time to respond, but I think part of the problem lays with mainstream pop feminism — as bell hooks explained. (If you want to read that link, scroll down to the paragraph starting with "Let's take the manosphere.")

I often watch rightwing podcasts like Fresh & Fit. Because they do offer solutions, sometimes brilliant. BUT you have to pick out the little poisonous bits of ideology. And sometimes look at the poison to understand it. I disagree with people who say "Don't read it, it's POISON!" Partly because mainstream discourse too has poison. No, if you learn some good (not crappy) philosophy & anthropology, and can read Hitler to bell hooks — incel to black feminist lit, you quickly get good at removing ideological poison

Briefly:

• Excellent point debunking the Tinder fake stats
• The manosphere often observes real patterns, but grounds them in evo-psych mythologies to answer "Why does this happen?" But of course, it could be grounded in non-universal culture too, not biology
• I do however suspect much of the phenomena is at least partly rooted in universal human biology, after all. We're still animals, and while culture may be unique to humans, a lot of us is still hardcoded. We can work around that hardcoding with culture (including the culture you build for yourself as an individual), but it's still there. Culture doesn't let us fly like a bird, though we can make planes as a workaround
• Part of the shame of high body counts may be a visceral biological male repulsion to women who are attracted to other men. Men may enjoy sleeping with them (so there may be attraction too), but find them repulsive as longterm gfs. Admittedly, I don't truly know if it's biological or cultural; and many men are exceptions. But I'm sure most of us would strongly agree that jealousy has some biological roots, so this could too

 

[Sleeper System]

Oh, trust me, baby I've heard it all. I don't need you to school me. I'm good.

Ima let you slide because revy is on my top 10 waifus. e__e lol

 

[RainAndSadness]

Sorry, I can delete the thread if you'd like.

No, like your thread contains valid criticism and I would like to hear constructive input but it's been completely derailed by people who felt the need to start an entire debate about Andrew Tate. It's probably the best to delete and re-post, people ususally don't get back to topic once it's been derailed.

Thanks for resorting to misgendering me I guess, suppose that's to be expected.

I just want to publicly state again that misgendering is not tolerated in this forum.

I often watch rightwing podcasts like Fresh & Fit.

Okay but couldn't you get the same from left-wing podcasts that don't contain casual mysoginy, racism and transphobia? Like with all due respect but how are they teaching you any good values if their entire podcast is permeated with such bigotry?

 

[Brown-Jacket Revy]

Ima let you slide because revy is on my top 10 waifus. e__e lol

Hard to deny her charm, no doubt.

 

[Spades]

I respect your openmindedness, and think you make good points, and think people should reciprocate even if they disagree with your specific points! (But many won't, so man up & fuck the haters, haha)

I don't have much time to respond, but I think part of the problem lays with mainstream pop feminism — as bell hooks explained. (If you want to read that link, scroll down to the paragraph starting with "Let's take the manosphere.")

I often watch rightwing podcasts like Fresh & Fit. Because they do offer solutions, sometimes brilliant. BUT you have to pick out the little poisonous bits of ideology. And sometimes look at the poison to understand it. I disagree with people who say "Don't read it, it's POISON!" Partly because mainstream discourse too has poison. No, if you learn some good (not crappy) philosophy & anthropology, and can read Hitler to bell hooks — incel to black feminist lit, you quickly get good at removing ideological poison

Briefly:

• Excellent point debunking the Tinder fake stats
• The manosphere often observes real patterns, but grounds them in evo-psych mythologies to answer "Why does this happen?" But of course, it could be grounded in non-universal culture too, not biology
• I do however suspect much of the phenomena is at least partly rooted in universal human biology, after all. We're still animals, and while culture may be unique to humans, a lot of us is still hardcoded. We can work around that hardcoding with culture (including the culture you build for yourself as an individual), but it's still there. Culture doesn't let us fly like a bird, though we can make planes as a workaround
• Part of the shame of high body counts may be a visceral biological male repulsion to women who are attracted to other men. Men may enjoy sleeping with them (so there may be attraction too), but find them repulsive as longterm gfs. Admittedly, I don't truly know if it's biological or cultural; and many men are exceptions. But I'm sure most of us would strongly agree that jealousy has some biological roots, so this could too

Thank you for explaining your points in detail!! I really appreciate that!

I agree that mainstream pop feminism has generally been bad for discourse, in the circles I'm in it's referred to as white liberal feminism. Pop feminism is harmful due to it's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the intersectionality of queer people and poc. It only serves to main the status quo of Capitalism that keeps men and women in poverty and hungry, but instead of men being on the top as CEOs, it seeks to put more women in these positions of power without addressing the core issues of what keeps women from getting there in the first place.

Now regarding the manosphere, I'm sure there are some good tidbits of advice thrown out here and there. But most don't know how to separate the good advice from the poison and I think that's where things start to get dicey.

Men don't have support systems like women do due to how men are disincentivized to talk about their feelings or show any emotions other than anger, less they lose their status as a real man.

While women tend to be encouraged to do so as they're growing up.

So the lack of support system these men have causes them to seek out advice from places that only further their isolation.

I find the idea of men having a natural repulsion to women attracted to men odd however, because there's no real way to tell how many men a woman has been with just by looking at her.

it looks about the same down there, and if there are differences, then I've simply never noticed due to how miniscule they are.

I find a lot of arguments for biological wiring to be a bit flawed due to how they often only ever acknowledge European societies and not the Natives or other people who lived very different lives and had different standards than we have now, that are actually pretty progressive looking back. It's a shame that's what got them eviscerated by religious colonizers though,,

 

[Rhizomorph1]

I just woke up and have not a calorie in my body nor glucose in brain so sorry if this is short – I'm tired

But just wanted to say that regardless of the veracity of OP's post which has been stringently criticized, it is disgusting how much of an underlying dismissive sentiment there is underpinning the responses.

There is a very compassionate and articulate response that is warranted when one raises the issue of misogyny. Whether we can expect this response or not on a suicide forum is a moot point when the fact is that sexism drives many people to the point of suicide and it does need to change.

The whole "what do you expect" rhetoric is essentially the Davis Moore hypothesis in the disguise of a strawman fallacy. This hypothesis has been torn to shreds for being overly-functionalistic and doing literally nothing to solve the problem.

We may think we are sympathetic to OP's feelings by recommending their alter their expectations of this forum, but in fact we are simply further marginalizing.

It happens too often that we reproduce the problem in our very effort to solve it.

OP, I see you. I'm sorry for this forum's response. I don't agree with everything you've written but that's besides the point. Sexism is real and it's fucking painful.

Feminism is absolutely warranted and any valid debate is within its sub-disciplines (e.g., maternal vs liberal feminism) NOT whether the overarching discipline is needed. And I urge anyone to disengage with anyone who is anti-feminist because their entire personal epistemology around what is fact versus fiction is skewed and will be weaponized endlessly in a sea of backwards immature semantics.

Material realism accounts for culture because culture has material outcomes.

 

[casual_existence]

I do however suspect much of the phenomena is at least partly rooted in universal human biology, after all. We're still animals, and while culture may be unique to humans, a lot of us is still hardcoded. We can work around that hardcoding with culture (including the culture you build for yourself as an individual), but it's still there. Culture doesn't let us fly like a bird, though we can make planes as a workaround

This is not a belief you want to hold on to. Neuroscience is a VERY new field and while genetics has been around for quite some time it can't explain sexual preferences consistently. The soft sciences are currently under crises because of failure of reproducibility.
But... it's about 1% right. Which is okay. Let me explain.
In humans it has not been 100% confirmed whether there is a link between mate selection and scent but it's confirmed in lab rats and various mammals. There were experiments done on lab rats to determine this. They did this by spraying baby rats with a lemon scent and then seeing who they would choose later on in their life for mate selection and the results show a clear link between baby's exposure to a scent and later mate selection in adulthood. The study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7122734/
Rats have an organ in their nose that goes through the process of learning a scent which is usually a female in the beginning. It is known as imprinting and it's not confirmed in humans at least not in THIS way FOR mate selection. Comparative zoology would have you believe that it must naturally be there but humans are WAY more complex than rats.
On the neuroscience perspective it's even more interesting. It's also WAY more difficult to do studies on humans. There's at least two competing theories on how the brain works but it can be boiled down to nature vs nurture. And neither of them win with any certainty. And in fact they may not win at all because human brains don't work that way. A new third theory is popping up that throws that out the window that I don't quite understand but it's clear that there's no consensus at least right now among neuroscientists.
What this implies is that genetics is poorly correlated with human nature. Not that that was ever settled WITH HUMANS. Maybe with some cute peapods (or not. Problems with the mendel studies but that's unrelated) but not with humans.
Psychology certainly doesn't have a base to stand on but not because humans are unreliable. It's because psychology is incredibly hard to reproduce. You pretty much have to work backwards. Find some social correlation and trace it back to a gene which is unlikely to work because the brain is involved which just makes things a bigger pain. And don't even get me started on the problems with the statistical analysis done on these studies.
As far as I can tell people have a serious misunderstanding of science. People seem to want to idolize science and make weird connections between facts and science. Science is NOT about facts. I guess this is what happens when you're bored. If you're not a good fiction writer well then just make up whatever on a forum about suicide.

 

[BornByGhosts]

I'm a guy
Both sexes suck

 

[jbear824]

Oh man. I usually try to be calm and respectful. But honestly, it's shit like this that makes humanity deserving of annihilation. Bring on the meteor. Bring on the climate change. Humanity just needs to be fucking erased from the cosmos.

Fuck Andrew Tate. Fuck everyone like him. I hope they die. Not sorry for saying that either. I'm honestly a lot of the time so ashamed to belong to the male gender. It's surprises me that women haven't just decided to rise up and just cull the male population, a move I would wholly support these days.

Seriously, everyone needs to get over themselves. The ignorance, the entitlement, the delusions. All of this is pathetic. Every last bit of it. Humans are fucking stupid animals. And they act like it too.

Fuck I feel like I need hard drugs after reading this thread. Fucking people

 

[Spades]

This is not a belief you want to hold on to. Neuroscience is a VERY new field and while genetics has been around for quite some time it can't explain sexual preferences consistently. The soft sciences are currently under crises because of failure of reproducibility.
But... it's about 1% right. Which is okay. Let me explain.
In humans it has not been 100% confirmed whether there is a link between mate selection and scent but it's confirmed in lab rats and various mammals. There were experiments done on lab rats to determine this. They did this by spraying baby rats with a lemon scent and then seeing who they would choose later on in their life for mate selection and the results show a clear link between baby's exposure to a scent and later mate selection in adulthood. The study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7122734/
Rats have an organ in their nose that goes through the process of learning a scent which is usually a female in the beginning. It is known as imprinting and it's not confirmed in humans at least not in THIS way FOR mate selection. Comparative zoology would have you believe that it must naturally be there but humans are WAY more complex than rats.
On the neuroscience perspective it's even more interesting. It's also WAY more difficult to do studies on humans. There's at least two competing theories on how the brain works but it can be boiled down to nature vs nurture. And neither of them win with any certainty. And in fact they may not win at all because human brains don't work that way. A new third theory is popping up that throws that out the window that I don't quite understand but it's clear that there's no consensus at least right now among neuroscientists.
What this implies is that genetics is poorly correlated with human nature. Not that that was ever settled WITH HUMANS. Maybe with some cute peapods (or not. Problems with the mendel studies but that's unrelated) but not with humans.
Psychology certainly doesn't have a base to stand on but not because humans are unreliable. It's because psychology is incredibly hard to reproduce. You pretty much have to work backwards. Find some social correlation and trace it back to a gene which is unlikely to work because the brain is involved which just makes things a bigger pain. And don't even get me started on the problems with the statistical analysis done on these studies.
As far as I can tell people have a serious misunderstanding of science. People seem to want to idolize science and make weird connections between facts and science. Science is NOT about facts. I guess this is what happens when you're bored. If you're not a good fiction writer well then just make up whatever on a forum about suicide.

I tried my best to convey the sheer complexity and just how much we don't know about human brains and their affects on sexuality and other things, but this explains what I failed to perfectly!

I have trouble explaining things in detail as I often get sidetracked over and over again. I'm a bit impatient when it comes to what I want to write/talk about which results in my ramblings being a bit incomprehensible and unfinished!

There's a lot more that I wanted to say in my initial post that I didn't because I assumed people would understand that these arent the only explanations out there,

and that there's typically multiple factors that play into these complex issues. I again, just wanted to write about so much, I'm not sure if I could have fit it all in one post.

I'm overall, just very scatterbrained aha..

Oh man. I usually try to be calm and respectful. But honestly, it's shit like this that makes humanity deserving of annihilation. Bring on the meteor. Bring on the climate change. Humanity just needs to be fucking erased from the cosmos.

Fuck Andrew Tate. Fuck everyone like him. I hope they die. Not sorry for saying that either. I'm honestly a lot of the time so ashamed to belong to the male gender. It's surprises me that women haven't just decided to rise up and just cull the male population, a move I would wholly support these days.

Seriously, everyone needs to get over themselves. The ignorance, the entitlement, the delusions. All of this is pathetic. Every last bit of it. Humans are fucking stupid animals. And they act like it too.

Fuck I feel like I need hard drugs after reading this thread. Fucking people

You shouldn't be ashamed of being a man, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. We don't control what we're born as. And you denounced sexism when you saw it, so there is no shame that should be felt.

I don't think it's right that humanity should be punished for the sins of the few. And while yes, we are animals, we have the choice of being slightly less shitty animals everyday. And for some, the choice to do better is difficult because it means you have to contend with your past actions and beliefs which can be painful.

I don't believe humanity is evil either, call me naive, but I think everyone can do better, especially me.

 

[SexyIncél]

Just a quick clarification; gotta rest soon

As far as I can tell people have a serious misunderstanding of science. People seem to want to idolize science and make weird connections between facts and science. Science is NOT about facts.

I know. It's about invisible mechanisms that generate those facts

Neuroscience is a VERY new field and while genetics has been around for quite some time it can't explain sexual preferences consistently. The soft sciences are currently under crises because of failure of reproducibility.

Yes, I understand that. But that doesn't contradict what I said. (Had I made dogmatic pseudoscientific claims & cited sketchy experiments, maybe you'd have scored a gotcha. Better luck next time!)

Spoiler: About science...

Experiments are possible when you can create reasonably "closed systems" — isolating individual mechanisms that generate events. You can do this with sciences like physics, chemistry... but it gets harder as you go up the complexity ladder: biology, society, psychology. Because you end up stuck with "open systems" — full of clashing mechanisms at various rungs on the ladder, that are hard to isolate

So for example, electrons don't change how they act after reading your theories about them. But humans do that ALL the time

This is mentioned in a philosophy of science called critical realism. Fortunately, there's various methods to discover mechanisms, keeping in mind science's fallibility

(Also: some say fields like cognitive science haven't yet had a scientific revolution, like with Galileo. They're in a "pre-Galilean" phase, which means they're barely at the point where they're even asking the right questions. Chomsky mentions this)

 

[R_N]

Oh man. I usually try to be calm and respectful. But honestly, it's shit like this that makes humanity deserving of annihilation. Bring on the meteor. Bring on the climate change. Humanity just needs to be fucking erased from the cosmos.

Fuck Andrew Tate. Fuck everyone like him. I hope they die. Not sorry for saying that either. I'm honestly a lot of the time so ashamed to belong to the male gender. It's surprises me that women haven't just decided to rise up and just cull the male population, a move I would wholly support these days.

Seriously, everyone needs to get over themselves. The ignorance, the entitlement, the delusions. All of this is pathetic. Every last bit of it. Humans are fucking stupid animals. And they act like it too.

Fuck I feel like I need hard drugs after reading this thread. Fucking people

So much misogyny while this person literally says they would support male genocide and gets a hug reaction by a mod?

I would say I am shocked because I kinda liked this place but after witnessing this I am out of here for good. I may be emotional today compared to my usual self but I am still a human and this doesn't sit well with me.

Some people are so brainwashed by any group they fall into it is unreal and I observed this since I felt it on my own skin as a child. Being judged for what was out of my control and not treated as individual. But at least I didn't gew up to be another blinded by hatred and brainwashed by cults.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I have noticed that in a few threads where guys are worried that they won't attract women, they have said the term: 'I don't want to have to end up settling for someone.' So- it isn't necessarily that no women will be attracted to them. It's that they worry they will have a small selection that they won't feel attracted to. That's not something that they can necessarily help of course. We can't exactly control who we are/aren't attracted to.

I'm not saying women don't use this term too- or that at least it doesn't run through their heads. BUT- I think it simply comes down to- Would you be happy being with someone who felt like you were less than they deserve?

Personally- I wouldn't. I wouldn't settle for someone who was settling for me. It shows a lack of respect and where's the genuine love there?!! I know I'm not a great catch but I wouldn't go with someone who I felt was just leading me on and giving me a chance because they can find no better. I'd rather have something genuine or- nothing at all.

So ultimately- it's one thing telling people- of either gender that there are more options out there but- if they truly believe those people to be poor substitutes- how great is that relationship going to be? Personally- unless people are open to being shown that their less than ideal choices could actually end up being amazing people, I'm not sure they should even be considering them.

That goes for both sexes- not just men. So, I agree with you that for either gender- there are plenty of people who feel attracted to all sorts. It's whether they are a good match ultimately though. If one person- male or female still happens to see the other as inferior- an embarassment- then- I simply don't think they deserve to be with that person! Why should anyone put up with feeling second or third best with their partner?

That's me though. I'm very all or nothing. Plus, to be honest- I'm fairly happy single. But my biggest 'settling' for someone likely wouldn't be to do with looks or what they did or how much they earnt- it would be if I felt they were settling for me. Someone who couldn't appreciate me for who I am surely isn't worth being around! Not even in terms of a friend. Why be around someone who doesn't think you're good enough!

 

[UKscotty]

I disagree. I didn't read the whole OP as its way too long for here.

There are luckily only a small number of women haters here or they get weeded out fast.

The old incel history of the forum is all but gone. There are a few left, but they fortunately don't stick around long.

Anyway none of this has anything to do with a suicide forum. Most men who want to attract a woman will hit the gym and get a job, not hang out on a suicide forum.

 

[SexyIncél]

Okay but couldn't you get the same from left-wing podcasts that don't contain casual mysoginy, racism and transphobia? Like with all due respect but how are they teaching you any good values if their entire podcast is permeated with such bigotry?

Well, I think leftist values are formed by action, not opinions. By helping underdogs effectively. One podcast about that is RevolutionZ. Smashing wageslavery, future vision, etc

But for practicalities like relationships & sex, the manosphere currently beats the pants out of any other group. Mainstream pop feminists have terrible values. Cartoonish concepts of what people are like. Many women I know despise feminists. So far, they failed utterly to organize so many men sympathetic to women's/trans/etc struggles

Feminists could offer compelling masculinities, without male superiority... not turn men into simps who can't fulfill women's desires. Gals I know want daring men with certain kinds of strength. If anyone has leftist sources for this, great, why not share them here? Otherwise, it's as bell hooks predicted

I agree that mainstream pop feminism has generally been bad for discourse, in the circles I'm in it's referred to as white liberal feminism.

Yeah I agree; just didn't want to get in trouble with liberals. :P Basically liberal means professional-managerial class. The hidden third class between capitalists & wageslaves/poor. Ruled the Soviet Union like a big corporation (they got rid of capitalists). About 20% of the population

I find a lot of arguments for biological wiring to be a bit flawed due to how they often only ever acknowledge European societies and not the Natives or other people who lived very different lives and had different standards than we have now, that are actually pretty progressive looking back. It's a shame that's what got them eviscerated by religious colonizers though,,

Completely agree. Biased people take extreme positions:

• purely hardwired: supports conservatives who fight social change
• purely cultural: supports managers who want to mold people like plastic

I find the idea of men having a natural repulsion to women attracted to men odd however, because there's no real way to tell how many men a woman has been with just by looking at her.

This is where anthropologists come in. If they see it happening in vastly different cultures through time — without serious counterexamples — it's likelier to be pretty universal among humans

I mean, biology doesn't completely determine us. But it does constrain our range of actions

 

[casual_existence]

Just a quick clarification; gotta rest soon


I know. It's about invisible mechanisms that generate those facts


Yes, I understand that. But that doesn't contradict what I said. (Had I made dogmatic pseudoscientific claims & cited sketchy experiments, maybe you'd have scored a gotcha. Better luck next time!)

Spoiler: About science...

Experiments are possible when you can create reasonably "closed systems" — isolating individual mechanisms that generate events. You can do this with sciences like physics, chemistry... but it gets harder as you go up the complexity ladder: biology, society, psychology. Because you end up stuck with "open systems" — full of clashing mechanisms at various rungs on the ladder, that are hard to isolate

So for example, electrons don't change how they act after reading your theories about them. But humans do that ALL the time

This is mentioned in a philosophy of science called critical realism. Fortunately, there's various methods to discover mechanisms, keeping in mind science's fallibility

(Also: some say fields like cognitive science haven't yet had a scientific revolution, like with Galileo. They're in a "pre-Galilean" phase, which means they're barely at the point where they're even asking the right questions. Chomsky mentions this)

What I was saying is that science does not support your speculation while adding some stuff for any reader who might be passing by.