Hi. Bi dude here. The LGBTQIA+ community is really not all that accepting of bisexuals, but does tend to be a bit more accepting of bisexual women. Bisexuals often get treated like we're fence sitting, like we havent accepted that we're actually gay or actually straight. And so we're clear, that's not a universal statement, but it is an experience that a lot of bisexuals experience within the LGBTQIA+ community
Doesn't help that a lot of this gets internalized, I think. Like, fuck, there are plenty of terms that seem reasonably descriptive of me (bi, demi, enby, etc.) but... I'm super straight passing, and not super driven by sex or romantic relationships, so it's like... I never really have to deal with these labels in my day-to-day? I stick he/they in stuff when people ask for pronouns, style myself somewhat androgynously, am well aware 90s David Boreanaz is objectively eye-candy, and I haven't gone on a date in... years, because I just don't really care. But claiming those labels feels improper, somehow. Both from a "born and raised christian, que toxic masculinity and internalized homophobia" perspective and a "I am in a position of extreme privilege where I haven't had to face many of the struggles common to the LGBTQIA+ community, claiming a place there seems insulting" perspective. /shurg
I've found a lot of women don't believe men can be "as" bi as women can be, and there's this suspicion that if a guy has ever been (or just wanted to be) with another guy, they must be more into guys than women, and wen don't want to have to wonder/worry about that. I think this is just a reflection of societal implications around male and female gayness being different though, that women are accepted to exist on more of a spectrum (perhaps because attraction to women feels natural to straight men, so it is less "surprising" or foreign to see even other women feel it), while men are considered more binary.
This is purely anecdotal, but I think that's more in line with other unaccepting straight men's reaction than straight women's (especially since a lot of straight women are into/fine with anal too). I think with women it in many ways comes down to the fact that everyone has been conditioned to think that guys are either 100% gay or 100% straight, while it can be sexy or desirable for a women to go both ways.
This is a really weird issue that I really don't understand how it's so persistent. Even younger women doctors seem reluctant to sterilize women without at least checking if a husband/so is ok with it.
Anyone of either gender who really believes that getting dismembered alive is PREFERABLE to being raped is well-advised to read up on The Rwandan Genocide, perhaps even find photos of the event. Difficult as it might be for us bougie-beyond-all-belief Westerners to comprehend, humans really do experience far atrocities far more heinous than sexual assault
I'm reminding everyone of both genders that emotions aren't facts, evidence, reality, or truths. They're byproducts of our thoughts, beliefs, and schemas
Seriously though, I hope this post gets taken down. This is a small community, downvotes don’t bury anything. It’s typical Petersonian propaganda that tries to argue against what is stated in the sidebar by flaunting abstract wordings, accusatory misogyny and straw men. If this stays up I’m so out.
Altho I myself am an egalitarian and therefore antifeminist, many of the points I made above are not inherently antifeminist. Before Patriarchy theory’s ascendency in the Fourth Wave, it was contested amongst feminist theorists. It was feminists themselves who first pointed out how incoherent, self-contradictory, and wholly unsuited to its purpose Patriarchy theory is.
As a once-angry young man who mellowed out somewhat (I am now an angry 30-year-old man), I do understand some of the prickliness involved, even if it doesn't apply to me anymore. I was always pretty liberal and anti-manosphere, but there is an element here that isn't "Men always have to butt in on subjects where we should be listening to women" (that definitely IS a problem, mind).
We, as men, are socialized to deal with othering in the most dogshit ways, and like rubbing salt in a wound, inevitably aggravate it. You don't talk about getting othered, unless you're getting angry about it, otherwise you're 'weak' and need to 'nut up' and 'stop being a pussy'. You can't work to solve it, because then you're a 'tryhard' and 'pathetic'. It's a kind of helplessness by being stripped of the natural tools that should be available to us, but generations of toxic masculinity have rendered anathema.
It's like being trapped in a cage, where you can see every piece of what is tormenting you, but do nothing about it except grind your teeth into dust trying fruitlessly to chew through the bars until some power, through no influence of your own, releases you. No one wants to be othered, no one wants to be seen as fundamentally contrary to participation in a common community - but many men have no way of dealing with that, and it terrifies them. The wounds never heal, but you become increasingly defensive and neurotic about it. It becomes a hair-trigger.
A lot of young men right now are probably reading the bear metaphor as more an incident of othering rather than an expression of the risk inherent to women when dealing with our current society. They aren't hearing "Jesus Christ, be a little receptive to the concerns of women, the risk calculus here is not the same risk calculus you are using", they're hearing "Women don't see us as equals, they see us as dangerous animals. We're not of a common community; we've been (or are being, or are realizing we've always been) cast out."
Obviously this gets the dander up on misogynists, but even many otherwise-feminist-leaning men will feel hurt by seeing it this way. And the reactions of some individuals - using that same 'nut up, pussy' toxic masculinity dialogue, but in 'defense' of a feminist metaphor - is twisting the knife, putting those who understand toxic masculinity back into the intensely frustrating position of trying to explain why that's a dogshit response, and making those who don't understand toxic masculinity double down in the natural, automatic reaction that they've been conditioned to embrace in response to being othered - pain. And from pain, anger.
tl;dr; The reactions of many men to the metaphor are problematic, but it's not as simple as "Bunch of sexists are unhappy that they have to consider other people" for all of them. A lot of is "Bunch of broken men are being given the exact scenario they are used to exercising their society-approved maladaptive coping skills in, with both sides effectively cheering their response on as it serves their own prejudices and preconceptions."
It's pretty difficult to come up with an analogy that could bring an understanding without sounding insane. If the thought process is feeling de-humanised then examples would correlate best with physical attraction but that makes you sound insane because it kind of is.
I have always been suspicious of any "rights" movement among those with power. Whether it's "White rights," the "rights" of corporations, the rights of the property class and wealthy, or Men's Rights. It is not that such rights do not exist or that there are no grievances deserving of redress, it's that they too often are self-serving attempts to retain or increase power.
I am of the opinion that the vast majority of legitimate male grievance against society would be better addressed by bringing to heel the corporations, the wealthy, and those who seek political power for personal gain.
There are people who, whatever they might gain, pursue political power to serve the best interests of society. I think of people like Charlie Angus in Canada or the former mayor of the village I once worked for.
Saskatchewan, Canada. To the best of my knowledge, all villages and even some hamlets have mayors and councils. Many hamlets, and possibly some villages, choose to operate as "unincorporated", essentially putting them under the control of the surrounding "rural municipality" (approximately equivalent to a county).
Rural municipalities have their own councils and Reeves (approximate equivalent of mayor).
The province has the authority to impose an adminstration in the event of malfeasance or lack of candidates.
I think that things are similar across Canada, but I don't know for sure. This may be a historical artifact of pre-Confederation settlement or the exceptionally low population density in Saskatchewan.
We used to have a saying regarding the many perceived negatives of Saskatchewan (climate, scenery, whatever). It keeps the riffraff out. Unfortunately, it turned out that the riffraff make up the majority of who stayed!
I stay because of the low population density. It makes it easy to avoid the riffraff 😉
Yeah, I've understood this community and similar ones to be about social norms, not rights. Your rights aren't being violated if someone tells you boys don't cry, but that person sure is being an asshole spreading bs and we should tell them they're wrong and push for better social norms
That leads to an entirely separate subject... The most pressing challenges today aren't ones of "rights", but matters of human development and individual choice
I don't think that you can put any of this down to individual choices. Individual men aren't the ones making choices that it's 'gay' to cry when you feel sad, or that being a Real Man (tm) means that you bottle up your feelings and push through the suck until you can't anymore and eat a shotgun for breakfast. These are societal-wide issues that are guiding people into the 'right' choices based on their presumed gender. While there is certainly some biology involved in how people act, those expressions are heavily shaped by society, and aren't within the control of any single person.
I mean, yeah, it's a patriarchal system, and that system causes harm to men also, and limits the ability that men have to express who they are as individuals, in the same way that it harms women, and limits their expression of self (and overall power within society).
"I don’t think that you can put any of this down to individual choices. Individual men aren’t the ones making choices that it’s ‘gay’ to cry when you feel sad, or that being a Real Man ™ means that you bottle up your feelings and push through the suck until you can’t anymore and eat a shotgun for breakfast"
No one forces us to do such things. If these aren't individual choices, who's making us do them?
7:05-7:13 We here at The MRM have been operating under the (uninterrogated)belief that Intersectional Feminism’s proponents are nigh-omnipotent sorcereresses(occasionally sorcerers), who turn docile plebs into blood thirsty misandrists, just by uttering magic lies from behind their microphones. Turns out, the explanation for their success at winning public influence may be simultaneously more prosaic AND more profound:
Intersectionalists provide their prospective converts with not simply one, but SEVERAL roles to play, within the framework of what appears to be, at first glance, a heroic saga… Powerhouse career women and their male allies, who successfully balance lucrative corporate careers with bravely campaigning for social justice, and thwarting the bigots’s schemes to establishing world domination. Bombastic, yet highly seductive and exciting
By contrast, The MRM really only provided our potential converts with one role, in an extremely dreary, unusually unattractive tale… Societal dropout, who’s idea of fun is endlessly griping over all the shit in modern life he disapproves of, yet rarely if ever discussing his/they’re goals and desires. Or a vision of the world they’d like to see
9:50ish-12:00 We’ve been, dare I say, Blue Pill in our understanding of the way many Intersectionalists operate, especially in their speeches and writings. To a large degree, they’re acting whilst doing so. We know this because the Susan Danuta Walters’s of the world(An admitted angry lesbian slithering through the halls of academia, who leads a highly bohemian lifestyle, even when she’s off the clock)really are a microsliver of the human race. The vast majority of Intersectionalists are themselves mostly upper middle class-all points beyond, leading highly “traditional lives”. Including marriages to people of the opposite sex, and raising kids of their own. At first glance, these folks are indistinguishable from those who comprise The Heritage Foyndation’s executive board
Those gigantic crowds who erupt in orgies of virulent rage during Intersectionalist soeeches? They’re almost certainly playing a role also. That Woke sympathizing grads of The New School like this chick https://youtu.be/lZs-Eb6H5BU?si=Gkq5Pj8IphUjWfBH 5:20-7:00 still yearn for a white picket fence house, kids(Plural), and a loving husband of her own is testament to this
This misreading poisoned fatally the way most MRAs conceptualized the extrenal world. That in turn tanslated into their/us pursuing a strategy which failed to convince The 80% of the public who’s still on the fence-and thus amenable to persuasion-to support us
26:19-26:43 It may behoove those of us who are Post-MRM to imagine ourselves having similar conversations with our descendants, at some future date:
-“Daddy, Mummy says you were an activist back in the day. Does that mean you were kinda like Iron Man or a Jedi Knight”
-"No, sweetness: I was pretty much a real life equivalent to The Continental Op. Go Wiki that name, and pay close attention to this paragraph: “The Continental Op is a master of deceit in the exercise of his occupation. In his 1927 Black Mask story “$106,000 Blood Money” the Op is confronted with a dilemma: should he expose a corrupt fellow detective, thereby hurting the reputation of his agency; and should he also allow an informant to collect the $106,000 reward in a big case even though he is morally certain—but cannot prove—that the informant has murdered one of his agency’s clients? The Op resolves his two problems neatly by manipulating events so that the corrupt detective and the informant get into an armed confrontation in which both are killed”
That’s how I and most of my peers rolled… We used highly innovative tactics in the neverending quest that is enhancing and safeguarding the cause of liberty for one and all. Both you and every other child today enjoys a richer, freer life than those of who’ve lived prior, largely thanks to your predecessors’s iron commitment to pragmatism and the pursuit of concrete, tangible objectives"
29:56-30:43 The current iteration of The MRM similarly has, since it’s inception, operated under an assumption which goes something like: “We need to provoke a psychosocial revolution in the human species, the likes of which rids Normie society of all it’s prejudices and biases towards men. THEN, when can go about not simply changing laws and policies, but building A Red Pill Kingdom Of Heaven on Earth, free of all tragedy and pain”. Such an assumption fails to take cognizance of at least one inconvenient reality though… System Justification https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-21802-017 Or, as Morris Fiorana has observed: “We humans are hardwired to be politically liberal, and socially conservative. That is: We want to live our lives and pursue our desires without being hassled or impeded, AND we’re also not automatically inclined for life to change drastically, in a very short period of time”
Thus, it’s not surprising that The MRM’s dream of awakening The Revolutionary they believed to be asleep within an alleged silent majority found itself shattered beyond all salvation by 2019, just as The BBC’s attempt to trigger a liberal democratic revolut against The 3rd Reich in Nazi Germany fell flat on it’s face, never to get back up
Severely diminishing the influence of not just Feminisism, but that of Illiberal Wokeness over the public is a far wiser and more achievable goal for those of us who are Post-MRM to pursue
31:00-31:46 There’s nonetheless a deep commitment to the principles of textbook liberalism(Equality before the law, unimpeded access to opportunity, and prosperity for one and all. Regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender, creed,or sexual orientation)at the core of The Post-MRM. We just realize that continuing to screech “Feminisism/Gynocentrism/Hypergamy bad!!” hasn’t been especially effective at winning widespread public support
And that the way to do so is quite simple, even if not easy: Start hammering home all the ways in which many current laws and policies(Quite a few of them brainchildren of lawmakers and lobbyists who are under the influence of Intersectionalisism)aren’t just harmful to men, but actually hamstring the most basic ambitions of the majority of the female population:
-Snagging solid, reliable husbands
-Having kids of their own
-Accessing a career which grants her the flexibility to split motherhood and work, 70/30
-Acquiring affordable housing in a pristine neighborhood for her to raise her children in
"7:05-7:13 We here at The MRM have been operating under the (uninterrogated)belief that Intersectional Feminism’s proponents are nigh-omnipotent sorcereresses(occasionally sorcerers), who turn docile plebs into blood thirsty misandrists, just by uttering magic lies from behind their microphones. Turns out, the explanation for their success at winning public influence may be simultaneously more prosaic AND more profound:
Intersectionalists provide their prospective converts with not simply one, but SEVERAL roles to play, within the framework of what appears to be, at first glance, a heroic saga… "
wow, who would've guessed that they don't actually understand the ideas they're pushing back against. They're fighting caricatures and straw-people rather than actually trying to understand what's going on, so then when good ideas convince people of something that they don't understand (or ideas that are mostly good but get taken too far), they just see it as magic lies that offer a framework of heroism. Sounds like they might have been won over by the framework of heroism and noble rebel offered by mrm, and are projecting 👀
and to be clear, I'm not saying lies can't convince people. But at least understand why the lies are convincing, what hidden premises they might be built on, what common bias they target, etc, instead of just treating them as magic words.
"wow, who would’ve guessed that they don’t actually understand the ideas they’re pushing back against. They’re fighting caricatures and straw-people rather than actually trying to understand what’s going on,..."
This is a very human error to make, and also a fatal one, ESPECIALLY when one is trying to persuade several million people to support your own goals and desires. The temptation to concoct and cling to infantile, MCU-esque explanations("Me and those who agree with me on every last point are The Avengers come to life. Everyone who dares to disagree with me or : gasp : OPPOSES me in some way are real life equivalents of Hydra")is something we mortals are hardwired for
Thanks. I don't understand much of what points they're trying to make and disagree with some aspects of what I do understand.
They seem to be saying that intersectionality is a dilution of power welcomed and promoted by the powerful. In fact, intersectionality as a philosophy of struggle was invented by the financialists in the 1970s as they struggled for their very existence. They applied a number of different labels over time, the most common of which is "big tent conservatism". It is how they gathered everyone from Christians to social conservatives into a battle against taxes, publicly funded social programs, publicly owned infrastructure, regulation of corporate activity, and the employee class.
The usual thing is for the right to steal the language and symbols of the left and turn them into insults and symbols of their own power. It happened with the swastika, it's currently happening with the Canadian flag, and "woke" has been turned into an insult so egregious that the original owners now fear to use it.
Intersectionality is, for a change, the left stealing from the right. Given that the financialists invented this philosophy, it should come as no surprise that they know how to twist it to their own ends. But that doesn't mean we should let them divide us for conquest.
"They seem to be saying that intersectionality is a dilution of power welcomed and promoted by the powerful"
I'M pointing out that Intersectionalists/Feminists have proven themselves to be far more skillful propagandists and salespeople than advocates for "men's issues" have
That is just a natural consequence of the length of time spent in the struggle and in the study of the problems faced and the most effective strategies and tactics for addressing those problems.
As men's movements come to understand their goals and the true causes of their problems, they, too, will develop effective strategies and tactics to achieve those goals.
I only hope that as the variations rights movements mature, they come to realize that the problem is not who limits our opportunities for success on our own terms, but that anyone does. The intersectionalists get closer than "closed" groups, but many still make the mistake of trying to gain access to the halls of power rather than destroying the very halls themselves. The powerful don't actually care who finds their way into positions of power as long as the power structures themselves remain intact.
"The intersectionalists get closer than “closed” groups, but many still make the mistake of trying to gain access to the halls of power rather than destroying the very halls themselves"
We only alter those halls by gaining access to them
We only alter those halls by gaining access to them
To a first approximation, no person or group who has entered the existing halls of power has done more than cosmetic redecoration.
We need complete renovation or destructive replacement. We do not get that by playing their game by their interpretation of their rules, but by forcing the creation of new interpretations, new rules, and even entire new games.
We do that not by aspiring to join their club, but by exercising the power inherent in mass movements in opposition. We don't need to change who holds the reins, we need to discard the very harnesses that bind us.
"To a first approximation, no person or group who has entered the existing halls of power has done more than cosmetic redecoration"
Alternate interpretation: Progress is incremental and imperfect. It's easy and pedestrian to view this as "cosmetic redecoration", and fantasize about an Apocalyptic overhaul of the existing social order, then setting up The Kingdom Of Heaven On Earth
We're still retelling Bible stories, even in the ostensibly secular age we inhabit
"I am of the opinion that the vast majority of legitimate male grievance against society would be better addressed by bringing to heel the corporations, the wealthy..."
Crony Capitalism is a serious problem. As you say, given that this is harmful to not just men but to our civilization at large, the wisdom of approaching such subjects as gendered problems is questionable
7:05-7:13 We here at The MRM have been operating under the (uninterrogated)belief that Intersectional Feminism’s proponents are nigh-omnipotent sorcereresses(occasionally sorcerers), who turn docile plebs into blood thirsty misandrists, just by uttering magic lies from behind their microphones. Turns out, the explanation for their success at winning public influence may be simultaneously more prosaic AND more profound:
Intersectionalists provide their prospective converts with not simply one, but SEVERAL roles to play, within the framework of what appears to be, at first glance, a heroic saga… Powerhouse career women and their male allies, who successfully balance lucrative corporate careers with bravely campaigning for social justice, and thwarting the bigots’s schemes to establishing world domination. Bombastic, yet highly seductive and exciting
By contrast, The MRM really only provided our potential converts with one role, in an extremely dreary, unusually unattractive tale… Societal dropout, who’s idea of fun is endlessly griping over all the shit in modern life he disapproves of, yet rarely if ever discussing his/they’re goals and desires. Or a vision of the world they’d like to see
9:50ish-12:00 We’ve been, dare I say, Blue Pill in our understanding of the way many Intersectionalists operate, especially in their speeches and writings. To a large degree, they’re acting whilst doing so. We know this because the Susan Danuta Walters’s of the world(An admitted angry lesbian slithering through the halls of academia, who leads a highly bohemian lifestyle, even when she’s off the clock)really are a microsliver of the human race. The vast majority of Intersectionalists are themselves mostly upper middle class-all points beyond, leading highly “traditional lives”. Including marriages to people of the opposite sex, and raising kids of their own. At first glance, these folks are indistinguishable from those who comprise The Heritage Foyndation’s executive board
Those gigantic crowds who erupt in orgies of virulent rage during Intersectionalist soeeches? They’re almost certainly playing a role also. That Woke sympathizing grads of The New School like this chick https://youtu.be/lZs-Eb6H5BU?si=Gkq5Pj8IphUjWfBH 5:20-7:00 still yearn for a white picket fence house, kids(Plural), and a loving husband of her own is testament to this
This misreading poisoned fatally the way most MRAs conceptualized the extrenal world. That in turn tanslated into their/us pursuing a strategy which failed to convince The 80% of the public who’s still on the fence-and thus amenable to persuasion-to support us
26:19-26:43 It may behoove those of us who are Post-MRM to imagine ourselves having similar conversations with our descendants, at some future date:
-“Daddy, Mummy says you were an activist back in the day. Does that mean you were kinda like Iron Man or a Jedi Knight”
-"No, sweetness: I was pretty much a real life equivalent to The Continental Op. Go Wiki that name, and pay close attention to this paragraph: “The Continental Op is a master of deceit in the exercise of his occupation. In his 1927 Black Mask story “$106,000 Blood Money” the Op is confronted with a dilemma: should he expose a corrupt fellow detective, thereby hurting the reputation of his agency; and should he also allow an informant to collect the $106,000 reward in a big case even though he is morally certain—but cannot prove—that the informant has murdered one of his agency’s clients? The Op resolves his two problems neatly by manipulating events so that the corrupt detective and the informant get into an armed confrontation in which both are killed”
That’s how I and most of my peers rolled… We used highly innovative tactics in the neverending quest that is enhancing and safeguarding the cause of liberty for one and all. Both you and every other child today enjoys a richer, freer life than those of who’ve lived prior, largely thanks to your predecessors’s iron commitment to pragmatism and the pursuit of concrete, tangible objectives"
29:56-30:43 The current iteration of The MRM similarly has, since it’s inception, operated under an assumption which goes something like: “We need to provoke a psychosocial revolution in the human species, the likes of which rids Normie society of all it’s prejudices and biases towards men. THEN, when can go about not simply changing laws and policies, but building A Red Pill Kingdom Of Heaven on Earth, free of all tragedy and pain”. Such an assumption fails to take cognizance of at least one inconvenient reality though… System Justification https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-21802-017 Or, as Morris Fiorana has observed: “We humans are hardwired to be politically liberal, and socially conservative. That is: We want to live our lives and pursue our desires without being hassled or impeded, AND we’re also not automatically inclined for life to change drastically, in a very short period of time”
Thus, it’s not surprising that The MRM’s dream of awakening The Revolutionary they believed to be asleep within an alleged silent majority found itself shattered beyond all salvation by 2019, just as The BBC’s attempt to trigger a liberal democratic revolut against The 3rd Reich in Nazi Germany fell flat on it’s face, never to get back up
Severely diminishing the influence of not just Feminisism, but that of Illiberal Wokeness over the public is a far wiser and more achievable goal for those of us who are Post-MRM to pursue
31:00-31:46 There’s nonetheless a deep commitment to the principles of textbook liberalism(Equality before the law, unimpeded access to opportunity, and prosperity for one and all. Regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender, creed,or sexual orientation)at the core of The Post-MRM. We just realize that continuing to screech “Feminisism/Gynocentrism/Hypergamy bad!!” hasn’t been especially effective at winning widespread public support
And that the way to do so is quite simple, even if not easy: Start hammering home all the ways in which many current laws and policies(Quite a few of them brainchildren of lawmakers and lobbyists who are under the influence of Intersectionalisism)aren’t just harmful to men, but actually hamstring the most basic ambitions of the majority of the female population:
-Snagging solid, reliable husbands
-Having kids of their own
-Accessing a career which grants her the flexibility to split motherhood and work, 70/30
-Acquiring affordable housing in a pristine neighborhood for her to raise her children in
"As has been discussed already here this community, the key takeaway from the bear hypothetical is that it is an opportunity to truly listen to the lived experiences of women under patriarchal systems"
And to avoid taking the imaginary and hallucinatory experiences of not just women, but all people of both genders remotely seriously. Such things are by definition fantasies
Do not call other submitters’ personal experiences into question.
If women's personal experiences lead them to make a choice, we are not downplaying that as "hallucinatory" in this community. This is unwelcome behavior.
"Do not call other submitters’ personal experiences into question"
I.E. If a chick or dude claims to have been abducted by a UFO, had their sex organs examined in a wide variety of ways which defy the laws of basic biology, and given birth/fathered a few million human/alien hybrids, don't so much as wonder to oneself: "Is it also possible that this person's story is a prank, or that the tale they're telling is a byproduct of schizophrenia?"
Pursuit of the truth, no matter where it leads, and how uncomfortable what we find might makes us feel momentarily is the stuff of The Dark Ages
If someone says something like that, there's no point interacting with them anyway. You're not going to persuade them that it didn't happen if they truly believe it, and you're not going to gain anything by attempting to do so.
Either way, you're complaining about feelings and behaviours resulting from entirely plausible experiences here, not about experiences that are themselves implausible.
Beyond that, it's no one who isn't a board certified shrink's role to persuade someone that what they believe may not be a perception or outright fantasy
Allowing others to continue in their delusions is abuse.
If I don't know you, I'll just let you go on with your life. But I'm not letting friends or family continue with their delusions.
I won't tell them they're wrong, just explore their delusions to hopefully help them come to their own conclusions.
In my family there are mentally ill, genetic disorders and neuro-atypicals. I deal with this all the time. It's challenging. But it's a responsibility we all share in the family.
Not really... it only says something about the internet, where a recorded conversation can include everyone talking at once and it can last as long as 1 person is still willing to respond to it (even if years pass).
Also I'm sure there's some fallacy (or more) here, as it's very likely there have been some truly ridiculous/mundane conversations in survival situations that we would never have any chance of finding out about (because of death or simply because of privacy). That and it's a pretty human thing for mismatch for a lot of different reasons, so using that as evidence for how great things are going (or even how well people are or aren't handling things) doesn't really work.
EDIT: Or pulling back... you're allowed to have more than one problem at once, including ones of statistics. I mean I do find this one tiring yet I do understand the point.
Dude, get some therapy. The world isn't as harsh and bleak as you imply, and if your life experience hasn't already shown you that, you need to stop throwing yourself a pity party and start working on getting better so you can enjoy your life.
My life experience has show me people would rather scream and insult others than recognize and validate experiences and opinions that differ from theirs.
What you write resonates with how I feel too. It's not fair, is it? I think there's a discussion that must happen, in the future. But right now, it's too inflamed, it's not possible. Then the question is, how do we get there? Can we get there without losing ourselves?
You hate the "man or bear" conversation. Imagine how much women must hate it, knowing that you and other "good men" will bemoan their feelings as soon as they express them. Think about how chilling that is to their concerns; how they have to walk on eggshells even around "good men" when they want voice legitimate concerns.
Few bears hunt mammals (but we've all seen photos of them hunting fish) but when they do, they hunt young deer/elk/moose, and are more likely to scavenge winter kills or fresh kills made by others (wolves/big cats/etc.).
Luckily, we're on a website and not in Gaza whilst The IDF carpet bombs the piss out of that poor corner of the globe yet again, or in the MS-13 controlled slums of El Salvador, where physical safety really is more non-existent than clothes on the body of Sydney Sweeney. Words we're reading off a screen ain't sticks nor stones, thus it's physically impossible for them to shatter our bones into a gazillion fragments
"Feminism holds the position that societies prioritize the male point of view and that women are treated unjustly in these societies."
It's not about equality if it favors one sex over the other.
You never see feminists complaining about the draft or female employment in sanitation industries, for example.
Trying to conflate "feminism" with "equality among the sexes" is just a subversive tactic used by feminists to fool men into thinking they care about injustices towards men.
They don't. In fact, most of them proudly laugh if anyone even mentions something along the lines of "injustices towards men."
Sure. From my point of view man and women both struggle from the same societal structures, be it in quite different ways. Feminism addressees those societal structures from the perspective of women and in more recent times other marginalized groups. While sure it's not a lens specifically developed to view male issues, for me personally it's been a helpful tool to empathize with women in general and to question societal or interpersonal structures (like man has to be the provider for the family or what the hell is family anyway?). You have a rather antagonistic view on feminism, maybe based on your own negative experiences or maybe influenced by certain media bubbles. So you might not find the discussions in this community very helpful.
I'm interested in discussing men's issues with feminists. I don't have nearly as much interest in hearing the view points of anti-feminists. Red pill and MRA spaces are decidedly boring because anti-feminists have taken over the discourse.
In short, I support labeling this a feminist community.
Men's Liberation
Active