101–110 of 226 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well let's be honest, job status, not unlike height/ethnicity/appearance is one of the many discriminating characteristics used in dating.
Let keep it honest, job status is directly related to ethnicity/appearance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want a decent dialog you need to practice decent dialog yourself. That begins with dropping weaponized generalities like "feminist outrage" and "Women of the West have succeeded in perpetually shaming men" (edit: and, of course, the same the other way around). Every side in divisive arguments lobs such weapons at each other. We all know exactly what those leads to on the internet: more of the same, only worse.…
Aren't those generalities true though? Remember when those female talk show hosts laughed on live TV about a dudes' dick getting cut off by his partner? Or what about the ESA engineer that helped landing on a comet and all the media could talk about is that he wore a shirt with stylized naked ladies on them. Imagine giving a women researching cancer shit because she wore a shirt with 'If a man ain't got muscle I ain'…
Research on male problems needs equal funding to women, throughout the world.
The problem is that when a 45yr old man dates a 25yr old girl all the women rabble and call him a pig, but when a woman will only date a man who 'can provide' its 'only natural'. You see the same issue crop up in tons of things. They tried to ban 'lad mags' in the U.K, but there was no talk of banning so-called kitchen romances (the shitty paperback stuff middle-adged moms love to buy in the supermarket). Iceland tri…
You're conflating a ton of different cultural issues (3rd wave feminism, UK's censorship fetish, etc) and removing them from their temporal context. Showgirls only came out 22 years ago; it was regarded as a bad movie, but it didn't generate much outrage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One generation behind us, women still sort of relied on men, and now that the tables have turned, women might need to make a compromise. You mean the system was heavily stacked to make women reliant on men. I won't call that a compromise. The tables haven't turned, the game changed. We have drastically removed many of the forces meant to keep women as dependents of men. If the tables had turned, then men would be s…
Yes, this, a thousand times this. People look at stuff like alimony or whatever and think "oh women just get all the breaks". When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc., essentially shackled to a man for life. Women being independent, expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great. I say bring it on. Independent women are far more interesting t…
I don't think the comments in this section suggested blaming women for reducing men's partipation in the workforce. Specifically, the comment's OP seems to be suggesting that while the economic tables have changed, socially it is still a requirement for men to have a regular, well paying job (or whatever that expectation is) which perhaps also need to change to accommodate the reality that a lot of men may not satisfy that requirement, while still being good partners in relationships.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this, a thousand times this. People look at stuff like alimony or whatever and think "oh women just get all the breaks". When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc., essentially shackled to a man for life. Women being independent, expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great. I say bring it on. Independent women are far more interesting t…
So what do you do when there simply aren't enough jobs for most men to "have their shit together"? What are all those men going to do when they have both no stake in the economy, and little or no chance of finding a woman to love them? What percentage of men like this can society handle before some sort of tipping point is reached? I refer you to this comment from "wingless" from another discussion currently on the f…
The problem is that when a 45yr old man dates a 25yr old girl all the women rabble and call him a pig, but when a woman will only date a man who 'can provide' its 'only natural'. You see the same issue crop up in tons of things. They tried to ban 'lad mags' in the U.K, but there was no talk of banning so-called kitchen romances (the shitty paperback stuff middle-adged moms love to buy in the supermarket). Iceland tri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't those generalities true though? Remember when those female talk show hosts laughed on live TV about a dudes' dick getting cut off by his partner? Or what about the ESA engineer that helped landing on a comet and all the media could talk about is that he wore a shirt with stylized naked ladies on them. Imagine giving a women researching cancer shit because she wore a shirt with 'If a man ain't got muscle I ain'…
> Aren't those generalities true though? They're really not. What's true are the experiences that led you to feel the way you do and the fact that you feel that way. But retrofitting that into a social theory with a grab-bag of data points doesn't yield truth. It's just a form of intellectual armor so you can make aggressive claims without being vulnerable where it hurts. If you gear up with that armor and then charg…
But I didn't name a single experience or anecdote. These are all googleable facts..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think having a job helps you when the person you are interested in is deciding whether they are interested back?
I'm past dating age (and anyway I have a relationship that has survived 20 years), but when I was younger, I never considered what the woman would bring to the relationship financially. I'm very traditional, though, so perhaps this attitude is no longer as common as it was when I was younger.
But I think that is not typical of cultures across space and time. Just ask Jane Austen. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Aren't those generalities true though? They're really not. What's true are the experiences that led you to feel the way you do and the fact that you feel that way. But retrofitting that into a social theory with a grab-bag of data points doesn't yield truth. It's just a form of intellectual armor so you can make aggressive claims without being vulnerable where it hurts. If you gear up with that armor and then charg…
> They're really not. What's true is the experiences that led you to feel the way you do and the fact that you feel that way. But I didn't name a single experience or anecdote. These are all googleable facts..
The energy behind comments like this isn't intellectual curiosity. It's pain left over from painful experiences. That's important, maybe more important than intellectual curiosity. Almost certainly more important. But we don't get anywhere when we argue about this through the armor of ideological categories, because that's not really what it's about. All that happens is that those with similar pain line up on one side and those with opposite pain line up on the other, each seeing the other as the culprit. What dialog is possible then? None.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this, a thousand times this. People look at stuff like alimony or whatever and think "oh women just get all the breaks". When really, stuff like that exists because women were expected to forego career for marriage, etc., essentially shackled to a man for life. Women being independent, expecting a guy to have his shit together? I think that's great. I say bring it on. Independent women are far more interesting t…
So what do you do when there simply aren't enough jobs for most men to "have their shit together"? What are all those men going to do when they have both no stake in the economy, and little or no chance of finding a woman to love them? What percentage of men like this can society handle before some sort of tipping point is reached? I refer you to this comment from "wingless" from another discussion currently on the f…
1) Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie, not just systems maintainers like Hillary, or rich guys who want to rip us off, like the guy who won. (And really work at a local level to enact structural systems changes!)
2) Work to change the cultural baggage around one's value being tied to one's day job. Make it sexy to be a poet, writer, singer, househusband, whatever, derive personal/interpersonal value from something other than a career. (And again, work at a local level to make it OK not to have a big thriving career, since it's not gonna happen for a lot of folks.)
That's what I'd do. The system of "men are worth something because of their career" is broken, and will never come back. I wouldn't even try to resuscitate it.