Many men are incredibly competitive, even to the point of sometimes being combative. Modern society (especially feminists) seek to pathologize this stereotypically male personality trait, but evolution selected for it over millions of years, and so it’s pretty deeply embedded in us and isn’t likely to change in a generation or two to suit some political agenda. We can get all haughty and pretend that our species is (or should be) beyond “petty” competition and posturing (often described pejoratively as “d*&ck measuring contests”), but reality proves otherwise.
When males compete in measuring contests, the goal is to psychologically intimidate their opponent into submission without a physical fight (and one can see how this strategy may have had some evolutionary pay-offs by preserving social hierarchy without the damage caused by constant physical contests). While d*&ck measuring contests often look like escalation or brinksmanship, and sometimes they can be, they just as often (or perhaps even more often) achieve their aim of submission without violence. Maybe that’s a good thing?
Such battles of psychological intimidation are intentionally quite nasty and cruel. During these scuffles, men will focus on what they perceive to be their opponent’s most tender and vulnerable spots (psychologically speaking). Nothing is off limits. Got an ugly mama and are sensitive about that? Expect that to be pointed out in stark contrast. Throw like a girl and are embarrassed of that? You’ll be taunted. Part of a minority group? Yep, you’re gonna hear some racial or cultural slurs. Are you a short and fat little dictator trying to compensate for a Napoleon Complex by obtaining intercontinental ballistic missiles? Well, you should expect to be called “Little Rocket Man” and to be insulted about your girth.
It’s important to understand that these insults are purely strategic. The insulter doesn’t necessarily believe that ugly mamas, girls (or throwing like them), belonging to a minority group, being fat or being vertically challenged are “bad” or “wrong” or “inferior”. Rather, the insulter simply believes that these criticisms are most likely to hit his opponent “where it hurts”. This is why you’ll never hear the taunted (if a male) reply by accusing the taunter of “racism” or “fat shaming”. The taunted knows that the taunter isn’t really racist or a fat hater but rather that the “insult” was chosen especially for its potential impact on the taunted.
In the past, these psychological battles were waged mostly “mano a mano”. But with the advent of feminism in the 20th century and with women entering the work force en masse after WWII, men were increasingly pitted in competition against women. And these men competed the same way they always had—by “hitting em where it hurts”. And when it comes to women, “where it hurts” almost invariably involves some sort of sex or gender-based shaming. For men, that’s the low hanging fruit.
And, respectfully, this is where most women, especially feminists, mess up: They play the victim rather than punching back. Can you imagine Kim Jung Eun responding to Trump’s “Little Rocket Man” insults by labeling Trump a “short shamer”? Such a response would violate Rule Number 1 of d*&ck measuring contests—“never let them see you sweat”! To criticize Trump for short shaming would be to implicitly acknowledge a sensitivity about being short.
Or, can you imagine Kim Jun Eun running to the UN and demanding that it take action to end the “hostile environment” created by Trump’s critical tweets? “Running to daddy” with an appeal to stop a bullying does nothing but empower the bully further. It’s proof that the psychological intimidation is working.
So, when women respond to acts of male psychological intimidation by labeling the man “sexist” or “misogynistic”, or by accusing him of “mansplaining”, or by running to some perceived higher authority for help, they inadvertently validate and empower the bully. They unknowingly concede defeat. They’ve lost the measuring contest as it was just getting started.
So, feminists are right about one thing: Sexual intimidation is indeed about power. But they are wrong that it’s about “male power”. Men don’t use sexual intimidation to “keep women down”. Rather, they use any intimidation they can to keep their competition, male or female, down. Their competition just happens to be increasingly female, and females just happen to be more easily intimidated sexually.
I see the argument + ultimate point being made in your post. I agree that women do owe it to ourselves plus the world at large to take responsibility for how we respond + react to the patriartic ideology + social structures + psychology of the modern glorified masculinity. This is because many of us still are not familiar with the true meanings of power, many women “feminists” unknowingly compare themselves to men because of these structures + institutionalized thought , hence becoming offended at the boyish things men do perceiving it as a literal threat to who they are. When in reality it is what we make of it, and what we decide to entertain will ultimately set the standards for what’s appropriate & what is not.
Spending time in college I took many gender sociology classes, I saw first hand how women respond to negativity. They entertain it, instead of transforming it. Unfortunately many women are stuck on crazy, along with many men in regards to what “power” is and healthy ways of sustaining it. This is a matter of getting out of the habit of playing into these baby masculine vs feminine games , start looking at the matter in a wholistic both objective + subjective perspectives. Power lies in the ability to know who you are + what you are capable of overcoming. As far as I know we Are always capable of it, unless we
Both of these things include avoiding responsibility. So for any other women who choose to respond to this, instead of instantly reacting from some past hurt or insecurity from the system of patriarchy, Speak with more love for yourself than disgust for another. We’re not helping women by getting mad at men, we help everyone by seeing the entire picture & accepting responsibility as a woman. We are emotional powerhouses of energy. Know your power, use it wisely.
Wow. Congratulations on being a real live demonstration of toxic masculinity.
Please read my replies to @techslut and see if you still think I’m promoting toxic masculinity. If so, I’d appreciate a rational explanation rather than engaging in ad hominem by throwing out a useless label. Maybe you’ll actually change my mind that way. At least you’d have a chance.
Here's the thing. Once you call toxic masculinity a "useless label," it makes discourse difficult. I don't consider it an ad hominem attack when the views you espouse are what the label you call useless is meant to describe. I'm afraid we may simply be too far apart in our view of the world to have a useful and helpful discussion on this topic.
Here’s the thing. If you truly understood what I was saying and the explicit intentions behind it (to liberate women and topple the patriarchy), then there is no way it could be fairly characterized as “toxic” or even “masculine” by anybody who is interested in freeing women and toppling male dominance. So the fact that the label was instinctively and reactively thrown about in an irrelevant way that doesn’t address either my statements or the intent behind them makes the label both useless and ad hominem.
When you write "To blame that disparity on men or “the patriarchy” without giving due consideration to natural, innate interests of each sex is to both deny reality and to create a scapegoat," it does not give the impression that you have any interest in toppling the patriarchy.
Further, people can disagree while, in fact, understanding the other party.
Are you suggesting that there are no significant differences in outcomes between males and females that are attributable to genetically determined differences in preferences, interests, goals, etc? If so, then you are
Arguing contrary to a great deal of science. For a summary of just a little bit of that science, please watch Steven Pinker‘s debate (you can find a video online) on this subject. Students of the “hard“ sciences (as opposed to the so-called social sciences) really have very little doubt on this point.
For instance, there is simply no doubt among scientists that testosterone contributes to risk-taking behaviors. This difference in risk tolerance between men and women plays out in a number of different ways – – everything from which profession they choose and how they perform in those professions and in many more things. If you plot outcomes on a bell curve for essentially anything, the male bell curve will be shorter and flatter (greater variance) than the female bell curve. In other words, men will tend to be over represented among both the most exceptional and least exceptional in any population while women will tend to congregate more around the mean (lower variance).
This is exactly what one would expect to occur with higher risk taking. The risk either pays off in which case the person ends up being in the most exceptional group, or it doesn’t pay off and they end up in the least exceptional group.
So, A great many of the observed differences in outcomes between men and women can be attributable to this difference in risk tolerance alone, not to
mention other sex-based differences. If you nonetheless deny that genes play any meaningful role in such outcomes, then we are at a standstill.
However, if you accept the science that suggests that some of these differences in outcomes are strongly genetically influenced rather than socially conditioned, then isn’t it important to take that fact into consideration when determining how to best topple the patriarchy? In other words, if our goal is to free women to act in a manner more consistent with their natural unconditioned interests and desires and to overcome the social conditioning (the patriarchy) that prevents that, then assuming that all differences in outcome are culturally conditioned when they are in fact not, and striving to reverse those differences through laws and shaming, had precisely the opposite of the the intended effect. Rather than freeing women from male-dominated social conditioning and allowing them to feel great about that it continues to force women to conform to social and cultural goals (that day outcomes “should” be equal) that are built upon wrong assumptions thereby making them feel even more traumatized, victimized and abused. Right?
Here's a link to the Pinker debate I mentioned earlier:
Money quote: "The truth cannot be sexist."
Yeah, @didic , give it a go. You have a penis so he might actually listen. I am seriously done trying to fix the world by talking to camels that can't see their own hump.
I'm curious what you think of my response to Sean above. I also have a penis. :)
Too tired got a long reply. Upvoted at 100% instead. Now use that penis to mansplain to Sean that women are humans, just like men.
Okay, you don't actually have to use your penis, but apparently it helps to have one so men listen to your opinion.
Thanks. :)
I have the luxury of being somewhat emotionally disconnected from this discussion because I'm already in a place of security, and I know Sean in real life to be a good person, so I can give him the benefit of the doubt. Not only that, I see the actual results of his worldview in his family's life and I see how much good is there. I'm willing to suspend some judgement in hopes of learning something I don't currently understand.
That said, I recognize how often someone's solution makes a problem worse. In this case, I think both sides of the discussion could get frustrated thinking the other side's "solution" is making things worse when in reality aspects of both solutions can be helpful.
You're being a sheep @lukestokes, seriously, I don't mean it as an insult, for goodness sakes look at what you're going/giving into here by excusing the post that @seanking wrote. It is in itself just excusing and normalising, and not just accepting, but promoting the macho bullshit that's been a long hard fought battle for by many people, and one that still needs pushing a good bit further to be anywhere near to being tamed, never mind overturned.
I feel this is this very fear of being being pegged back down to our real value in a fair and equally balanced workplace/society/family life, whether he realises it or not, Seanmore or less says it's wrong of us, and that it's losing the battle if we ackowledge that there's a raw nerve there to be touched. That if we see ourselves as a victim, we become one. Really?? Fair?? No FFS, but very convenient! This viewpoint can only come from the viewpoint of a mysogynistic mind, not the scientific/biological arguement that he suggests.
The whole jist of the post won't hold an ounce of water for any fair-minded reasoning man, even if he occaissionally displays some of that behaviour, sometimes seen when people get drunk. It's behaviour they'd be normally ashamed of which means we do have the ability not to act like competitive cavemen in suits. Not that I wear a suit.
It sounds to me that this post is about desperately needing power or fearing the loss of it, and then being barefaced greedy enough to excuse bad masculine behaviour, that is institutionally entrenched in many of the older ruling elite, in order to keep it.
Seriously, this is not intelligent debate by a long shot, it's more like a minor politicians, who haven't been totally corrupted yet, having to go out giving uncomfortable statements in arguements/debates for their masters, as they slowly get ground into being a part of the sorry system. I've seen tamer 'mgtow'posts on youtube than this. please at least hit
I can't believe you're conscienciously only giving yourself a 100% upvote, seeing as you're being good enough not to make your own seperatepostabout this sad 'discussion' you're having.
There is some serious sickness at steemit, but you have to remember, all you say here is always here for people to delve into, and steemit isn't always going to be the same.
I wonder what the 'anonymous. think to all this this wanton greed that abounds. :)
Ps how on earth can you afford to be emotionally detatched from the world and the plights of others. It's a bit like saying I'm emotionally detatched from the homeless, because I'm secure in my nice house, no?
Wow. Congratulations on being a real life demonstration of the female lizard brain’s inability to comprehend the fact that men and women are different. Everyone is different!
Is it just me or has there been been a increase in toxic matriarchal vitriol on the internet in the last 10 years?
But... how am I demonstrating the female lizard brain's inability to do anything when I'm a dude?
I should have asked your pronouns first! Gender is fluid too, right? Toxic masculinity and gender fluidity. - that’s the bullshit the media is pushing in whatever echo chamber of groupthink you came out of.
Oh, that's an excellent reminder to put my pronouns in my About. Thanks, pal!
Well said @sean-king. I couldn't agree more. Men have been so silent in the past 10 years on our emasculation as a society. It's refreshing to read your thesis.
I would summarize everything you said in terms of a single expression familiar to most men, "It's just business".
And that it is. To all the overly sensitive types, take it easy it's nothing personal. We still love you as a person. But yes when it comes to competition it's all on the table and we don't apologize.
I would tend to disagree. Your thinking behind an evolutionary need for competition is sound but not ubiquitous amongst modern generation's male population. For example, certain men fear and abhor competition, likely because they have a history of being defeated at it, but these same men may still be candidates for misogynistic attitudes. Moreover, it is shortsighted and single-minded to suggest that there is only one, or that there is even a main reason for sexual intimidation. Consider the possibility of seeking a mate using backward and medieval strategies, or sexist attitudes manifested through a lifetime of experiences, learned behaviour from a peer group, the role of the media in objectifying women, and so on.
Also, “this is just the way things have been” is an argument laid out on a platform that is directly in opposition to things just being the way they have. Most advances in humanity are direct challenges to the status quo, with history dotted with individuals fought against as they swim against the flow.
I think these situations will continue to crop up in the future as new hurdles are presented to jump over, but this is where humanity has always been at its best - thriving against adversity.
I think a huge difference in your view and mine is that you perceive that we have far more control over ourselves than I do. Our deepest evolutionary programming, such as male hierarchy and competition, just IS. It can’t be consciously changed (except by evolution over thousands of years). Attempts to shame or suppress masculine traits have very negative consequences (just as attempts to suppress female traits have). We are far better off dealing with that reality than letting politics and our personal moral preferences delude us into thinking that we as a society can be (or God forbid already are) very different from our more primitive ancestors. Every culture at every location at every time has basically looked the same (when it comes to male/female traits and preferences), and to suggest that (with just enough will power) we can change that as a result of some great moral imperative seems naively utopianistic. Utopian fantasies are almost invariably harmful. Every great evil the world has seen was preceded by some utopian fantasy.
That's a great excuse for men to act like asses, except it has zero basis in reality. Evolution did not make you sexists. Society did. Through generations of gender oppression.
Wrong again. Shaming and suppressing violent and aggressive behaviors in our society is exactly what we should be doing. Not making up excuses for it.
I wonder if you hunted down a mammoth today, or died before age 30 like your primitive ancestors. If we're going back to nature, might as well go all the way. Live in caves and hunt for food.
Nope. Many great evils were preceded by people claiming the world is fine as it is, and can never be changed for the better.
Wow, why all the vitriol? There’s no need to resort to labels and ad hominem. Can we just have a discussion and talk facts without the name calling?
I know its hard for you to see it, but I’m actually on your side. I actually want to free women from submission to men. I want to do that by helping them fully embrace, own and market their sexuality however they see fit. For thousands of year’s they’ve been prevented by men (and recently by traditional feminists (as opposed to sex positive feminists)) from doing so.
I think you and I mostly agree on that objective. Where you and I may disagree is in the method of achieving that objective. Where traditional feminism (and even sex positive feminism to a lessor degree) has gone wrong (IMHO) is that it has focused all of its resources on resisting and supressing the old patriarchy (quite unsuccessfully, I might add). However, as Buckminster Fuller (I know, he’s male, but consider the possibility that he might be right about something nonetheless) famously said:
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Rather than continuing to resist maleness and its institutions, I’m advocating (in the spirit of Buckminster Fuller) for a new feminist paradigm that turns the natural male interest in females into an advantage for women rather than a disadvantage, and that thereby makes the old male patriarchy obsolete.
This begins with the recognition that the so-called “objectification of women” is completely natural and can and should be exploited to women’s benefit. Men’s interest in women as sex objects is the result of deep evolutionary programming. If you don’t understand how or why that’s the case, then please consider reading some books on evolutionary psychology (“Why Beautiful People Have More Daughers” and “Sex at Dawn” are two great ones). There are also a great many published academic studies on the subject. The fact that evolution has programmed men to pursue women as sex objects really is not debated among serious scientists (and I don’t consider “social science” to be actual science). What is sometimes debated, however, is whether we can do anything to change it.
I suggest that we can’t fundamentally change what evolution has created. All the evidence suggests that the odds of ever socially conditioning men not to view women as sex objects is about as great as the odds of successfully conditioning women not to have a maternal instinct. Even if for some reason it could be shown that the maternal instinct is socially suboptimal for some reason, attempting to end it through bans and shaming would (a) never work and (b) be extremely harmful.
So, what I suggest instead of resisting this male tendancy is to exploit it. That can be done by returning female sexuality to its rightful owners—women—and by teaching women how to exploit it to their advantage (just like we teach atheletes or intellectuals how to exploit their natural physical talents). If women could systematically exploit men’s sexual interest and convert it to their advantage in the same way that the athlete, intellectual, or artist is free to exploit and market her talents to those who are interested, women would be empowered like never before (which is exactly why the patriarchy has never allowed this to happen and has supressed female sexuality so relentlessly over the centuries).
Males are unquestionably more competitive, aggressive (even violent), and ambitious than females. These traits are mostly genetic (a function of higher testosterone levels) and not socially conditioned. This fact has been shown in study after study, and its true in virtually all species (not just humans). Again, the odds of changing this evolutionarily programmned behavior by shaming and suppression are, like the odds of ridding females of the maternal instinct and resulting behaviors, essentially nil. No socieity in the history of the world has ever succeeded, and there’s no reason to believe we can.
But, what we can do as a society is harness and channel these male instincts in ways that benefit women rather than harm them. Again, returning ownership and control of female sexuality to women (and taking it away from the male dominated churches and political institutions) so that they can openly and shamelessley market it to men in ways that benefit themselves, and so that men are forced to compete for it (like that compete for any other scarce resource), is one way of doing this.
While this solution is obvious, traditional feminists (but not so much sex positive ones) resist the idea visciously. They do so simply because they have such (understandable) resentment toward men and toward the patriarchy that they are more invested in revenge than success. Consequently, they see any attempt by women to exploit their sexuality as “selling out” to males by giving men what they want most rather than depriving them of it. They fail to distuish between being forced to give it up and being able to freely market and charge for it. For this reason, traditional feminists have actually joined the male patriarchy in shaming women who attempt to exploit men’s interest in their sexuality to their personal benefit. I find that incredibly offensive.
I would suggest that the world works best (and least violently) when free markets permit people to sell their goods or talents or assets on whatever terms the buyer and seller agree. This is freedom. This is what women have been denied for thousands of years. And this is what needs to be restored to end the patriarchy.
When women are conditioned to be traumatized or terrified or angered by men’s sexual interest, they overlook obvious opportunities to exploit it to their advantage. Anything we can do to help women change this conditioning and drop the shame (and especially to change the laws) so that they can own and freely market their sex appeal is a good thing that will ultimately end the patriarchy. This is why the patriarchy has resisted such attempts for so long. And, regrettably, traditional feminists have inadvertently aided and abetted them.
Women are the primary shamers of other women. Enforcing chastity and monogamy increases our sexual value overall and protects our children. It is a disadvantage to ourselves and our children to procreate with uninvested men. Men do not all share the same "spray and pray" reproductive strategy either. Harsh climates and scarce resources make cooperation a requirement so that families will survive. The fact that manna does not fall from heaven into the mouths of mothers and babies and that we need to be supported while mothering is not evidence of the patriarchy, and a fictitious problem requires no solution. Prostitution or promiscuity are both poor strategies which will leave offspring without the advantage of a dedicated male provider and place children at risk of harm from unrelated males. I see feminism pushing for freedom from biology by advocating that the burden of childbearing be supported by force through taxation, laws that force employers to pay women who are not at work, and gender biased, govt enforced child support. Replacing fathers, chastity, and monogamy with these things is not a good strategy. Fertilizing as many eggs as possible is not a man's only driving force. Men also need/desire committed and loving partnerships for their own health and well-being, until death. It is a lonely and unhealthy old man who has not bonded with his children. Also, overall productivity will go down if the care children is socialized and if women breed indiscriminately. Women compete with each other for suitable men and vice versa, and then we cooperate by not interfering in each other's monogamous bonds. Somehow from there, the cities are built and the electricity and food keeps flowing.
So men will continue to rape women and I am supposed to accept that because testosterone and rape culture?
Maybe if you stopped raping us so much, we wouldn't be so scared by your sexual interest.
Market my sex appeal?! Am I a sex toy or am I human being trying to move up in the world with having to fuck anyone I am not attracted to? My sexuality is not for sale, or rent. And neither should it be. My success as a human being should not depend on my sexual interaction with men or their sexual attention.
Imagine you work in a company of gay men. You try and be professional, but all they want is to fuck you. They don't care about how good the work you do is, but only about how tight your pants are. And when you come to pick up your check, your boss "accidentally" drops it so he can smack your ass when you bend over. And while there,you notice the payroll papers and discover you're the lowest paying person in your department. Because you're just a straight guy.
This is not a world you'd want to live in. Trust me.
Evolution never results in “ubiquitous” outcomes. Quite the contrary. I never suggested otherwise.
I never suggested that there is “only one” or “one main reason” for sexual intimidation. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Evolution has nothing to do with some people being sexist dicks.
Actually, it has everything to do with it. Please read any book on evolution in general and evolutionary psychology in particular. I explain more in one of my other replies to one of your comments.
Okay, explain to me why I was employed in a job where I managed a team of men but was paid less than them. Please. How is this an evolutionary rather than simply sexist (but very prevalent) trait of male business managers, who see women as inferior even when they prove to be superior (more experience and knowledge on the job)?
I’ve got about 0% time and effort for the entire traditional masculinity thing. It’s a huge waste of energy and isn’t generally more counterproductive than productive. If it’s being challenged and a new way forward is being presented, then I’m all for that. And definitely kudos for going against the grain rather than play by some perceived standard rule set.
I generally don’t abide or indulge in any of these typical maleness aspects and my life is none the worse for it. No need for bants, no need for being geezer about town. I don’t fight against it, I just don’t indulge it. It has an incredibly small value in my life.
Steemit is, pleasingly, the same way. There is, in the main, an incredibly positive and collaborative mentality here. No jostling for position, no drive to put others down to claw your way to the top. A refreshing change to the bitterness of Twitter.
You're saying that men are competitive, aggressive and purposefully intimidating, and we women are just supposed to understand and accept it as a gender trait? Yeah, how about NO.
So you're saying your gender is "winning" by raping my gender? Either that, or your mansplanation lacks what most excuses for sexism are missing - logic and common sense.
If you genuinely understood me to say anything like what you say I did, then I suggest you read the whole thing again. Otherwise, please stop slaying straw men.
I’m saying that women should fight back and NOT just accept it, but they need to fight back in ways that empower rather than disempower them. One way is for women fully embrace and own their sex appeal. If women weren’t so easily shamed by accusations that they exploit their sexuality for selfish reasons, then men couldn’t use such accusations against them so successfully. Said more plainly, you can’t shame the shameless. I’d like to see women be more shameless by owning their sexuality completely. Given your username here, I think you and I agree on that, no?
"I’m saying that if women weren’t so easily shamed by accusations that they exploit their sexuality, then men couldn’t use such accusations against them so successfully. Said more plainly, you can’t shame the shameless. "
This actually reminds me of when I confronted a man in the parking lot the other day for being a total dick. (It was a dumb move. Whatever. Moving on with the story.) And he was all, "You better move along, lady, or you won't like what I have to say about you next." And I was like, "AHAHAHAHA WHAT ARE YOU GONNA SAY, DUDE?" And he called me a bitch and a slut and I laughed in his face because I really couldn't care less about being called a bitch or a slut, and that embarrassed him in front of his friend.
In other news, I was lucky he didn't have a gun.
Where I see a hole is that effectively we are painting feminism failing as it is not playing by the rules of a Male constructed ruleset. It starts to raise questions like “is that the right way to do things?” There is no obligation to get drawn into power battles on this level and that seems to upset the male world as they find out all the constructs that allow them to thrive are not being adhered to. And there is no real reason why they should be.
Starting to do things differently always attracts resistance and things do not always go very well at first. Eventually, a new and higher benchmark is set and we all benefit. Its effectively change management.
Quite the contrary, traditional feminism (unwittingly) plays by men’s rules exactly. By insisting that women who exploit their sexuality for profit are somehow “selling out”, it forces women (to men’s advantage) to give away (under rules determined by the male dominated institutions of church and state) what men would otherwise have to pay dearly for.
So feminism doesn’t reject the male ruleset (quite the contrary) but it does reject evolution’s ruleset, and to women’s great disadvantage.
I do not even know where to start...
Feminism. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Evolution's ruleset? What ruleset? The one that lets your gender treat mine like sexual objects without a brain? Again with the rape excuses? Heh. Got more MRAish myths to try and excuse your gender's centuries-long violent oppression of mine?
I have to bow out for a bit, I’ve got to go watch Star Wars with my bro!
Well, I come from a fading era where men were allowed to be men. I have respect for everyone until they give me reason not to. In this new era I find myself in, I sometimes feel as though I have to think a lil' bit more about what my mind wants my mouth to say :) or I may find myself down in the HR office defending myself over a comment. I grew up with pecking orders in place and believe me I was not top dog by any means. I used to work on a lobster boat up in Bar Harbor Maine pronounced "bah ha bah" by the locals and I can tell you if you're not part of the big corporations who throw classes at you constantly to mold you into a submissive type then out in the "real" world what you speak of absolutely exists. I can remember times men taking it a bit to far and exchange blows until the dispute was settled. After work the two would be having a beer laughing about it. I've been in these situations myself and for me at times this was life as I knew it. Don't be fooled either, there are some really tough women out there as well who can handle themselves better than lots of men do that I've brushed shoulders with in this corporate world. I guess what I'm trying to say is you can't take these aspects out of humans by telling them they "can't" do it or by shunning or making it illegal or can you? There's a whole very different generation that I've awoken to in the last decade very slowly at times and quickly all together that really baffles me. I'm not quite sure what to make of it and somehow I feel as though my comment has some relevance to your post? I could go on and may after feed back. You always make me stop and ponder Mr. King. I'm glad I found you.
@lukestokes asked me (in another forum) how I think women could respond to male sexual intimidation in ways that are more empowering. Here was my response (FWIW):
My purpose in raising this issue is to try to balance the “uneven power dynamic” that you mention, and the point of my post is to describe how traditional feminists responses to male sexual intimidation actually do the opposite—they exacerbate the uneven power dynamic.
As for how I think women “should” respond to sexual intimidation...well...I would simply suggest that women should exploit all the innate sexual power that they have, which is actually tremendous, to its fullest extent. An example: Men (and feminist) have convinced women that flirting with a co-worker to get ahead is demeaning and exploitative. Well, if it is demeaning and exploitative at all, it’s demeaning and exploitative of MEN, not women. When women use their sexuality to gain an advantage over men, it’s MEN who are being played, not women. That so many believe the opposite is evidence of just how successful men, religious institutions and traditional feminists have been at shaming women into abandoning this innate evolutionary advantage.
By embracing and owning their sexuality fully in this way and others, women can no longer be sex shamed. This makes sexual intimidation by men much more difficult, maybe even impossible. It’s only their shame over sexuality that makes them subject to sexual intimidation, and traditional feminist responses only exacerbate that shame (while pretending the opposite with an abundance of false bravado). When women become shameless, shaming is impossible.
Second, I think women shouldn’t hesitate to expose men who try to exploit them (as the #metoo movement has done). But rather than running to HR or accusing the men of misogynistic practices, discrimination, slut shaming, mainsplaining, etc. (which are all examples of playing the victim), women should just out these men in ways that are empowering to the women. For instance, a tweet saying something like “@harveyweinstein, thanks for the offer to screw last night, but I prefer my men to look more like Brad Pitt. PS—Your threat to black ball me won’t work.” Yes, such a tweet comes with significant risk, but it does keep the female in the psychological power position (and besides, nobody said that battles of psychological intimidation are easy or risk free).
And lastly, women should exploit their growing economic power as Gal Gadot recently did. When she agreed to play Wonder Women, the studio refused to offer her a multi-picture contract because she was relatively unknown and they feared the move would be a flop. Instead, it was a great hit, and now the studio’s back is against the wall. Basically, they must sign her to make more movies in the series or potentially lose hundreds of millions of future dollars. Not only can Gal demand a huge amount of money, but when she learned that one of the companies associated with the Wonder Women franchise was run by a guy accused by many women of sexual intimidation, she supposedly refused to sign for more movies unless and until the guy was removed from his position. She did this quietly and never personally went public with it (instead having others leak thew news). This was a brilliant move on her part. She kept total control and wielded her power wisely. She no doubt earned much respect in Hollywood. I doubt anyone will screw with her again, and I bet she’ll get multi-picture offers next go around.
How far ahead can I get by being flirtatious without putting out? It's a bad strategy except in the most special circumstance. I'm nice looking, for now, but no Gal Gadot. Mostly, it's going to be me putting myself in a situation where I'm actually expected to suck that dick. No thanks. I'll keep competing on merit in the workplace, do my part to not interfere with my boss's marriage, and bet your ass I'll slut-shame and tattle on both him and the colleague who sucked his dick to get a promotion over me. What you're proposing is silly if you think pure flirtatiousness will get far without actually putting out sex. It's also demeaning to men. My boss would be insulted if I thought he wanted a blowjob in exchange for a raise. He just wants me to do my frigging job well, keep improving, and he really does have a benign interest in my job satisfaction. The number of ethical managers and colleagues far outnumber those willing to deal in sex and attempting to fuck and suck my way up the ladder would likely put me out of employment. (Nor would it sharpen my performance, increase my productivity, or enhance my job satisfaction). Your solution, to a rare problem, is unethical and against my morals, and will result in more harm than good. It's no solution at all.
There are lots of ways to get ahead without putting out. Maybe the guy who has expressed an interest in you is a wicked computer programmer and could teach you a thing or two, thus helping advance your career. In that case, stringing him along and letting him pat you harmlessly on the ass on occasion as his reward for teaching programming skills could be a huge win/win for you both. Lots of nerds would be thrilled with a pat on the ass and nothing more.
Or, if the guy is your boss, then you could easily redirect his interest from your bodily assets to your intellectual and business assets. For instance, one of the most difficult things for an underling to get is the boss’s attention. How many underlings would give their right arm for an hour long lunch with the boss during which they could make their pitch for their latest great idea? Well, if you plays it right, the fact that the boss admires you physically means that your more likely to get that lunch, right? I respectfully suggest that you should exploit the hell out of that! No blowjob required.
Does doing that mean that meritocracy is being undermined? No. Your idea may be the most meritorious in history, but it will never see the light of day if you can’t get the boss’s attention. If your physical beauty and sex appeal help bring the necessary attention to your idea by getting you that lunch, then you, the business and all of society win as a result.
I find it very difficult to believe that you have written this many thousands of words on sexual human nature and do not see what will occur next. C'mon. Surely you know what a sexually interested man will do next if I signal that I'm open to his interest? I think you ought to consider this carefully and see how much of what you've written and replied is based on an unrealistic expectation of how a sexually interested man will react to the strategy your proposing.
Additionally, I'd like you to consider another set of natural traits/abilities that women have. Surely you have noticed that we appear child-like? Cry easily, high pitched voices? We're quite easy to pity, actually. It's a nice little defense mechanism granted by nature. Surely we should exploit our "cuteness" and vulnerability to get ahead? Surely it is only natural for us to play the victim? What is it you don't like about feminists playing victim? It's a tried and true strategy, surely with a basis in our genes, no?
I have thought much about thsoe scenarios, and as a man I’ve actually been in those scenarios, and while I’ve very much enjoyed the flirting and the banter, I’ve never even once sought or demanded more from a coworker. So, I respectfully suggest that your assumptions as to how things would play out are false, at least in many (probably most) circumstances. Most guys are sex-deprived nerds and would be thrilled to just lovingly touch a beautiful women and nothing more.
You raise a great point about playing the victim. You’re exactly right! It’s a very effective strategy in many instances, and one that should be exploited. Non-feminists will have no problem doing so. But, honestly, have you every seen a “loud and proud” feminist play the victim in a cute an endearing way? I’ve not. Instead, most react, as @techslut did, with viscious name calling and ad hominem attacks. The point of my original post was to explain to them how these particular attacks are actually counterproductive (when you call a sexist a sexist all you do is let him know that he’s winning) and that other types of attacks would work far better.
I absolutely disagree that most guys are sex starved nerds who will stop after being granted physical contact. That's preposterous and not reflected in our courtship rituals or anyone's experience. When you allow a man to sexually touch, he inevitably moves forward.
I tend to agree. To assume the majority of men will enjoy what women choose give them and then, on a dime, stop the moment the women withdraws her consent seems inconsistent with the many stories we here of women being taken advantage of by stronger, dominant men who have no problem violating her consent.
That said, I also just thought about strip clubs. For some reason, in that context, men get what they pay for and no more. I wonder if that would be a support for Sean's view or not.
Oh, another minor point I forgot to include relates to the importance of intent and materialistic hard determinism. I was looking for Sam Harris' commentary on this, but couldn't find it easily. It was a little tidbit he added at the beginning of one of his podcasts. The basic idea is that intent really matters, even if there is no such thing as free will. Intent gives us insight as to potential future behavior. If someone intends to treat a women against their preferences, then that's an indication of how they will act in the future. That's why someone passing by on a subway that accidentally touches someones butt and someone who does it intentionally without first obtaining consent are radically different in very important ways.
What if they have no intention of doing anything against the girl’s will. What if instead they simply intend nothing more than to caress something that they find indescribably lovely, perhaps like they would a puppy or a kitten, and it never occurs to them that the girl might object, or they honestly believe that she wouldn’t?
You might say: “How could anyone assume that she’d not object?” Well, in light of societal conditioning, nobody probably could. Everyone has been conditioned to believe that every woman automatically objects to being touched (even in nonharmful ways) without her permission every single time. Respectfully, this conditioning is silly. We don’t observe anything like it anywhere else in nature. In the absence of such conditioning, just as many (and very likely more) women wouldn’t be offended by a harmless touching than those who would. And the latter would simply make their preference known after the fact, in which case the touching would in the vast majority of cases cease. And when it didn’t, then it could be dealt with in other ways.
So, if intent matters, isn’t only HARMFUL intent that should matter? Like the intent to make the woman feel like she has no control over her body? I agree, that’s problematic and there are ways to deal with that. But if the intent is just to harmless caress something lovely, then no harm no foul, right? Even by Sam Harris’s logic (which I’m familiar with and agree with) and intent to harmlessly caress something lovely does no harm to either individuals or society.
You might say, “yah, but some women have so much trauma around sex that even a well-meaning love pat or caress can cause psychological harm.” Well, I get that. And some men suffer from PTSD such that slamming a car door or shooting fireworks traumatized them. Do we ban or shame car door slamming and fireworks in deference to these poor souls? Or do we instead seek to rehabilitate those pools souls so that they are no longer traumatized by harmless door slams or fireworks? We do that latter.
Thanks for the detailed responses, Sean. I'll reply here first and then to the others as well.
Here, I think, is the crux of the disagreement. Most human beings are locked in the concept of "self" and their consciousness means they have ego. By that, they are more than just a "something" but an enlightened, aware being with "free will" (something both you and I contend they don't really have). They see themselves as different than a rock or a tree. My hunch is you and others who have studied Buddhist-like philosophies from a non-theistic perspective (like Sam Harris and the people he interviews) would argue this is just a mental trick. Fundamentally we are no different than the rock or the tree.
This might be where you lose people in this line of thinking.
I don't think it's about social conditioning. I think it's about self-ownership. No one has the right to touch me or even invade my personal space. Doesn't matter if I'm a man or a women. If a man does something to me against my concept of self-ownership, I will naturally engage in conflict with them (this is a traditionally masculine response). If the same happens to a women they are just supposed to accept it or somehow use it to their advantage even they don't want it to happen? I can't agree with that because I think the concept of self-ownership is more important than primitive sexual preferences. I say primitive, because to me it's on the same spectrum as rape which you and I both agree is completely unjustified, regardless of the evolutionary urges involved. Men can resist their sexual urges. To argue they can not is demeaning, IMO.
I replied to these ideas in detail in another thread. My short response: Your problem isn’t really with non consensual touching (you’d have no problem with someone giving you or your spouse or daughter a love pat on the back), it’s with SEX. You automatically assume that any non consensual touch that’s remotely sexual in nature MUST somehow be an offensive violation of self sovereignty when other types of nonconsensual touches are not. I maintain that your thinking (and women’s thinking) on this point is purely a result of conditioning. For thousands of years we have literally terrorized our daughters to fear sex and the attention of men in order to maintain their chastity so as avoid being shamed by the moralizers and to preserve “family honor”. To this day women in certain Muslim countries who respond to men’s (not her husband’s) sexual interest in accordance with natural instincts rather than in ways prescribed bu the religion will be publicly stoned to death or subjected to disfiguring acid attacks (thus destroying her beauty and her sex appeal for life). At least here in American and Europe, all we do now is mental terrorize them by shaming and humiliating them mercilessly, I suppose.
And no, a woman is NOT just supposed to accept violations of self-sovereignty, Luke. If you hear me saying that, then I’ve not communicated well and I apologize. When self-sovereignty is actually really violated, the women should take action to protect themselves and men should assist in protecting them.
But what I’m suggesting is that both men and women reconsider what constitutes a violation of self-sovereignty. Is the touch inherently offensive (what makes a pat on the back different from a pat on the ass)? Do other creatures in nature react with similar offense and sense of violation to being so touched? If humans never had religion and parents had never been super paranoid (in an age without birth control or abortion) about their daughters getting knocked up by some schmuck, would human females always and in most every instance STILL be offended, violated and/or terrified by a little pat on the rear?
If not,then perhaps that automatic reaction of feeling like self sovereignty has been violated isn’t natural or normal. Perhaps its a result of years of being traumatically conditioned by a patriarchy that is more concerned about scaring its daughters away from the cabanna boy (so as to appease the moralizers and protect family honor) than it is about helping those daughters fully embrace their sexual interests and power. If that is true at all (and I don’t see how anyone can reasonably argue that it’s at least not partially true), then overthrowing the patriarchy absolutely requires overcoming (or at least re-examining) those feelings of being violated by every glance or touch, or at a minimum not terrorizing the next generation in the same way we have all past ones.
I have raised this issue (that the feeling of self-sovereignty being violated is conditioned through trauma rather than a natural aand healthy feeling) several times now and you’ve not responded. Do you agree that we have traumatized our daughers for generations in order to protect ourselves from the moralizers, preserve family honor and (pre birth control and abortion) to protect them from raising a schmuck’s child? I hope so, because I don’t see how this point can be seriously challenged.
If so, do you see how this systematic trauma (that denies women natural control over their own sexual decisions and if/how they use their sexuality) is itself the real source of the patriarchy?
If so, then do you see how overthrowing the patriarchy requires at a minimum that we STOP doing that to women and, ideally, that we work to rehabilitate those women (which is essentially all women) who have been so damaged?
And finally, if so, then do you see how rehabilitating them involves inviting and/or challenging them to seriously ponder and grapple with these issues (regarding the source of their feelings) rather just habitually reinforcing their conditioning (as you seem to be doing) that any unsolicited pat on the rear or kiss on the cheack is always necessarily an insult to their sovereignty?
If you answer that last question “no”, then please explain why. Again, why is an unsolicited pat on the back NOT an affront to their sovereignty but a pat on the ass IS? What’s the natural (non-conditioned) explanation for this feeling? Why is it not an affront to self sovereignty for a male to nonconsesually slap another male’s rear (as often happens in athletics or even business, for example, sometimes replacing the “high five” as an atta boy), but it is automatically an affront to self sovereignty (in your view) for a male to slap a women’s rear? Again, what’s the natural (unconditioned) explanation for this distinction?
Isn’t the real distinction just the fact that one is deemed potentially sexual while the other is not? If so, then why is that distinction relevant? Do you think that women NATURALLY fear men’s sexual interest and that this fear is not conditioned?
If so, then...why? Can you think of other instances in nature where that’s the case? Female bonobos are notoriously promiscuous. They have essentially zero fear over male sexual interest. Female chimps are less so, but they still seem to show little to no fear when a would-be usurper (to the alpha male) comes calling.
I contend that the human female’s great fear and sense of violation is a consequence only or primarily of traumatic moralizing by her parents and her religious authorities. If you have a better explanation, I’d love to hear it. And, if you don’t, then how can you not work along with me to challenge and overthrow that conditioned response so carefully enforced by the partriarchy for so long?
Great article . Its a stimulus/trigger for most of the peoples @sean-king
Kindly visit my post on introduction if u dont mind
Are you fucking kidding me? Where do I even begin. The ICC - International Criminal Court - lists rape as a war crime. Hm... are the same number of men raped by other men, as women are raped by men? Have you taken your head out of your ass long enough to analyze what's going on in Hollywood right now? Systematic, complicit codes of sexism to disenfranchise women. Let's back up even farther. What are you trying to accomplish with this post? Do you know what revenge porn is? It's such a big problem that there's new legislation trying to grapple with that issue - exactly how is a man posting revenge porn 'competing' against a woman who has broken up with him? The whole point of revenge porn is to disenfranchise, to keep down - not to compete. God damn you are stupid, shallow, toxic, and frankly uneducated.
I think you should read what I wrote again. Did you not see where I explicitly acknowledged that women are more easily sexually intimidated than men?
You seem to draw a disitcintion between “disenfranchising” or “keeping down” and “competing.” I would simply suggest that the whole purpose of competition (whether male on male or male on female) in some men’s minds is to disenfranchise and keep down down one’s opponent. So, I kinda think we’re saying the same thing. Perhaps you should read what I said again and point out any specific phrases that you object to (but when you do, please be sure to interpret those phrases in context).
You asked about the point of the post. The point was to point out that:
1). Some men are highly competitive, even combatitively so.
2). This competition often takes the form of psychological intimidation rather than physical combat (though not always).
3). When men compete against other men in bouts of psychological intimidation, it often takes the form of “dick measuring contests” designed to humiliate, embarrass or harass the opponent into submission.
4). Over the last 50 years, men have started competing more directly against women and not just other men. When they do, they employ the same general technique as against men—techniques of psychological intimidation designed to harass, embarrass and/or intimidate their opponent into submission.
5). And that with women in particular, one of the easiest ways for men to harass, embarrass and/or intimidate them into submission is through sexual psychological intimidation (which would, btw, include things like revenge porn).
6). That women can fight back against psychological sexual intimidation and shaming be becoming shameless—that is, by fighting back rather than playing the victim. Accusing an abuser of being a “mysoginist” or “mansplainer” or a “sexist” might be true, but it’s completley ineffective at winning the pscyhological battle. All it does is let the abuser know that he’s getting under your skin and winning.
What part of the above do you object to exactly? These things seem pretty self-evidence to me and not particularly controversial. Do you perceive me as advocating for such things? Perhaps that’s the problem, in which case you’d be very mistaken.
Not that it’s particularly relevant to the discussion, but the facts are real clear that more men than women ARE in fact raped by men each year, at least when prison rapes are factored into the equation. Google it.
Have you printed out you article and shown it to your female bosses yet? Please do, and let's see what happens!
Alas, I have no female bosses.
I do not support these psychological wars @sean-king
Whether you support them or not is kinda irrelevant. They exist. They always have. They will continue. Best to learn how to live in that world than to stick your head in the sand.
This seems likely to trigger a lot of people. I'm interested in the response. I'll check in with this article.
Did you check in? Bring the popcorn and warm socks :)
Well, I realized that the popcorn thing isn't helpful to people that are experiencing real pain and discomfort and are talking about it.
It's a lot of text to go through, but one main thought from my days in sales is "If you're explaining you're losing." I see a lot of that on the wall here.
Not everything is a sale (though salesmen will often sell you on the idea that it is). Some like myself value explanations because they truely want to understand different perspectives, not be sold. It's a small distinction, maybe, but I still think it's a useful one. Maybe that makes me the mark though. :)
Good news and great article well written, you my inspiration. @sean-king
That was impressive
This seems likely to trigger a lot of people. Good article over all @sean-king
I am in favor of equality or parity between genders. But I would reject laws like Island just published - equal salaries for both. There are biological differences, which can make man or woman work better or worse in some areas. Salary should not be influenced by a possibility of having child though.
As for verbal battles, I have found it is necessary to learn to fight them. And it is alright. A better will be chosen and the worse will get an experience and some sort of motivation to improve. After all, it is how Darwin's theory works...
Can you provide a couple of examples of intentional psychological intimidation that a man might typically use against a woman?
"I'll tell everyone you're a whore if you don't sleep with me."
Who here hasn't heard that one?
I meant a couple of examples relevant to competition between men and women. In what instances, where a man and woman are competing, will the man behave as described? And what does that look like?
"She’s not even that good at her job. She got where she is by blowing the boss".
The funny thing is? That's a false. You know what a truth is?
"Oh him? He got the promotion because he has a penis. It's why he's paid more too."
Both of those statements are awful to say about someone.
I get your point, but there’s a great deal of evidence suggesting that your statement isn’t true at all. If you’d like to discuss it sometime, I’ll be glad to offer it up. But if you’re completley sold on your current worldview and no amount of evidence will change it, then no worries.
I have SEEN IT HAPPEN. Men promoted over women because management is a boy's club. Female students in STEM fields ignored. I am not blind to it because it hurts me. No evidence will change statistics - because of view's like yours women will never be treated equally in the workplace. Because apparently you boys lack the ability to treat a person professionally if they don't have testicles.
That's just something people say. I would not be able to attribute that statement as more likely to come out of either sex.
Women speak to and about each other even worse than men speak to or about them. We've long enjoyed the privilege of extra respectful treatment from men and are loath to relinquish special treatment in exchange for equal treatment.
I've never said that to anyone. Nor would I ever.
Can't say I've used (or heard) that one.
I think men insulting women and intimidate them due to the fact that they are aware of their impunity. The law has not settled these issues. And if not rape, beatings, and does not penalize for that. So? All these molesting girls on the street, ridiculous compliments - you think women like this? No no and no. We are afraid of. We do not feel safe in the evening on the street. And it's awful. Any man with impunity can stick to the woman, and for him it will be nothing. He does not use violence. But such psychological harassment is also traumatic to women.
They want us traumatized and afraid. It's how they can control and subdue us.
This is actually true to some degree. We agree for once! You and I simply disagree on the solution to the problem it seems. You (like most feminists) seemingly are convinced that resisting male interest in women through shaming and suppression it is the solution. On the other hand, I think that, being evolutionarily determined, it can’t successfully be supressed or reconditioned and that the best approach is therefore to free women to exploit the shit out of it by returning ownership and control of female sexuality to its rightful owners (women).
And I hang around here with a name like techslut? Hardly. I am shameless and happy with it, but I had to work hard to get here.
Female sexuality will never be owned by women as long as most women experience sexual assault or harassment in their lives. Ask your mom. Ask your sister. As your wife. Many of us have had our sexuality taken from us and shredded by men who think it's all natural and it's their right to overpower the female to take what they want like a wild animal looking to spread its seed.
I had that done to me when I was 15. I had to reclaim my sexuality and guess what? It was NOT EASY and took years of hard work and therapy because I blamed whatever sexuality I had at 15 for attracting a predator. Not all women get the help and support I did, and many live in pain and anguish or simply kill themselves. So many.
You can't free women by beating and raping them into submission. Most of us have learned to fear men either from our mothers or from very painful experience. To many of us, our sexuality is not a gift or a tool but a curse. A reason to be attacked, a reason not to be taken seriously and a reason to get raped. And none of that is evolution's fault.
You continue to either misunderstand or misrepresent me completely. Rather than address my specific contentions, you slay straw men. Please read my stuff again and then let me know if you really think that I’m advocating in any way for women to be beaten and raped into submission.
With respect, I suggest that you’ve not yet reclaimed your sexuality at all. Your entire worldview (if not your entire life) is still controlled by these few limited traumatic experiences from your past, these demons. Your politics is ruled by them. Your attitude is ruled by them. Your seething disdain and distrust of men results from them. Even your handle here reeks of false bravado and little more. If you had truly reclaimed your sexuality, you would’t fear being vulnerable (IMHO, and yes I’m entitled to have one, even with balls). You wouldn’t fear exploiting it. No, you’ve not reclaimed it at all. Men (or at least these demons of men) still own you. (Believe it or not, I say all of these things to you with total sincerity and love. I’ve got nothing but love for you, and I hope you heal someday).
My wife has never been assaulted. My daughter has never been assaulted. I don’t believe my sister has ever been assaulted, but I suppose it’s a matter of how you define assault (as an actual act of harmful violence or a harmless physical touch). My Mom may have had some issues with a family member in childhood (I’ve heard hints of that), but they don’t seem to have scarred her like they have you.
I would apologize for your experience at the age of 15, except I wasn’t responsible for it, and neither was my gender as a whole. That you can’t see that suggests that you’ve not reclaimed your life to the extent you think you have.
It’s tragic that these few experiences have tainted your worldview so that you now perceive your sexual attractiveness as a curse and men as threats (again, yet more evidence that you’ve not actually reclaimed it). I’m truly sorry for that. I can think of few things more tragic, actually.
Yes, you were. It's exactly that toxic self-indulgent "evolution said I deserve everything" attitude that turned me into a rape victim and you into a woman-hater in denial.
Also, you don't shit about me, or my sexuality, so between your threats and assumptions, you've made it quite clear you're not a man willing to listen to the opinions of anyone without a penis.
And the most tragic part of all is you honestly see yourself as enlightened when your words clearly show you're no more than a misogynist perfect shaped into an example of a gender supremacist.
I am done. You're not here to listen anyway, just make ridiculous excuses for sexual violence and throw threats at any female that disagrees.
I think females are equally, if not more, competitive than men are.
Based Steemian
If you and the feminists want to argue about the best strategy for tilting at windmills, ya'll knock yourselves out.
I told him to print the article and show it to his female bosses and see what happens.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings
I wish that were. It it were, then I’d be a feminist (and by that definition I am). But feminism as it is commonly understood (and as its founders defined or originally) includes lots of other doctrines and wordview’s that have nothing to do with women being human beings.
I hope you don't mind me asking, but are you a member or supporter of MGTOW by any chance @seanking, as a lot of what you say is straight out of their 'manual', so to speak.
I’ve never even heard of them. Who/What are they?
I agree with you
please like have me
Yep. Ego.
Good or bad though? Some dudes just take it too far...
"females just happen to be more easily intimidated sexually".....
Being an Attorney then you should be more then aware of what happens to men who drop the soap.
Also, Sperm counts are dropping at a staggering rate and you started your life out as a female........but whatever, you have nipples for a reason so embrace your inner feminine and perhaps go make me a sammich
am not going to be butthurt over your opinion and hopefully you take me talking about your nipples or making me a sammich in the context of playing around on a rather meaningless social platform where you get paid to talk shit....how's that ;)
winky emojis make it all better
I can agree that the insults are more a reflection on the recipient's beliefs than the speaker's, but intentionally attacking a person's insecurities in order to prove ones alpha male status is an intentional choice to be an asshole for the purpose of feeding into ones own starving ego. It's low hanging fruit whether directed towards a male or a female.
What most neanderthals get wrong is that they need to play mind games and bring others down in order to emerge superior rather than recognizing those who are already better than them and learning from them.
If you want to be a real man, learn to change and better yourself. Stop using the weak to make yourself feel superior and start using the strong to make yourself superior to who you were yesterday.
I agree with everything you just said. Alas, evolution doesn’t seem to have the same problem with assholes as you or I do. If it did, there would be far fewer of them.
Glad to hear you do agree. The one thing we don't seem to agree on is that somewhere in there evolution gave us free will and what you're attributing to evolution I attribute to decisions. The fact that not all men are disgusting assholes is proof that we have agency to overcome our primal urges of one-upmanship and competitiveness and violence so I don't and can't excuse the men who act this way.
So evolution would have made all men disgusting assholes but for the supposed existence of free will?
Hmmmmmm
Buth the fe