I disagree. The moral aspect is only one part of the decision. Other aspects may include:
imminence - I may attach more importance to things of less moral significance that are going to have a more immediate impact
effectiveness - I may attach more importance to dealing with things I can affect significantly versus things where my actions are not impactful even if I feel the harder things are morally worse. I can’t do much about genocide in West Remotestan, but I can do a lot about littering in my street. If I choose to pick up litter here, this doesn’t mean I think genocide is a lesser moral failing.
Definitely. It’s the very rare person who is able to prioritize issues that don’t affect them over issues that do. I act as the leader of our local teacher’s union, and I go to school board meetings, and I write emails to local government leaders, about education issues, and I help school staff resolve issues with administration, all the time. I spend at least one, and close to two, orders of magnitude more time on this issue than on all other local issues combined.
None of this should be taken to mean:
I think public schools are the single most important issue facing our local community.
I think the issues in our local schools are more dire than the issues facing schools in neighboring counties.
I think the issues in our local schools are more dire than the issues facing schools in Afghanistan.
It would be absurd to draw such conclusions.
Instead, I spend so much time on these issues because:
I have expertise. I know these issues better than I know any other issues.
I have influence. I can affect these issues more than I can affect any other issues.
I have skin in the game. I feel the effect of these issues more than I feel the effect of other issues.
Now, I’m not single-issue. We supported the nurse’s union when they were forming, and we are putting out a statement in support of LGBTQ+ staff and children based on a threat from a culture-war group that’s moving on our community, and I do some work on other issues.
But most activists I know are like this: they choose an issue where they have expertise, influence, and skin in the game, and focus their efforts there, without in any way suggesting that the issue they focus on is objectively the most or only important one.
Oh boy. You must have had different women around in your life.
I’m not saying all women are not like you say but many…I would say most if not vast majority…are not.
I have had several ex-girlfriends, one ex wife (and a wife now who IS what you say…mostly), many women coworkers who I have had ‘work friends’ status, sisters, 2 daughters, friends, friends of friends, friends of daughters and I can attest they are NOT safe to be vulnerable toward and who you shouldn’t feel comfortable discussing these vulnerabilities with. I have seen many relationships crash and burn from the woman’s viewpoint through these people.
Women, IME are selfish, cruel, judgmental, uncaring, unempathetic, and unhelpful as a general rule. Before you deride me as a woman-hater…the same is true of men. Humanity is these things and women are human. There are some who aren’t these things and they, both men and women, should be treasured.
As for showing your vulnerability and asking women for help, especially if you are involved romantically, just…be very careful. IME, the quickest way for a woman (or a man) to fall out of love with you is for you to be vulnerable and go to them for help. Sure, it works at first…but the novelty quickly fades.
There is a reason for the ‘manly’ stereotype. It didn’t just form from nothing. It exists because that is what society and women tended to have wanted throughout humanity’s existence.
Sure, open up to your partner. Ask for help…but be very careful not to do too much of it.
I don’t think BlinkingDuck is necessarily being misanthropic. I think it is simply an anthropologic point of view, and one that is essentially valid.
It’s admittedly anecdotal, but based on my 50+ years of observation & experiences of being with female relatives, friends, coworkers, etc., the vast majority seem to desire masculinity (“manliness”) in a man. I also haven’t noticed much of a correlation with political leanings; most seem to simply like manliness. YMMV, of course.
Do you know what “the same is true of men” and all humanity means? To follow your logic, any criticism of all humanity is misanthropic because it includes women.
What I said was unnecessarily harsh and didn’t mean to come off that harsh. However, I still stand by my statement that people (which includes women so Ulfreida defines that as misanthropic) really do not want to see too much vulnerability in their partner. At first it is nice to get close and have someone trust you enough to share. However, unless you fix it relatively quickly, it will wear thin and most people will start to get turned off and slowly fall out of love.
Now, I wouldn’t say that any criticism of humanity is misanthropic, that’s a bit of a strawman of your own making. But your original statement that you agree was pretty harsh most certainly was.
And it’s not because it includes women, it’s because it is referring to humanity.
Speaking as an outlier — femme sissy hetero male — this matches my experience, but “the vast majority” (fortunately) doesn’t equal “all”, and furthermore, focusing on the gals who do like manly men / masculine guys preferentially, they too like to get their guys sharing intimate personal emotional content, including stuff that makes the guys quite vulnerable — it’s just that they prefer that this sharing be rare and special and preferably kind of exclusive. That they get to be the rare person who gets to look into the guy’s soul and stuff.
Reciprocally (i.e, the flip side), although I’ve never seen anywhere near the defensiveness on the part of women that men tend to exhibit around being perceived as less-than-manly or too-girl-like etc, I will testify that I have found some women find it kind of unnerving to be with a male who isn’t less emotionally resilient than themselves, as if to not be the more emotionally mature of the two “un-womans” them, or, if not quite that, throws them off-balance and they’re not sure how to proceed and, either way, they back off. That’s not really the same thing as judging a male for not being masculine and stoic and private about his feelings and stuff, but it can play out in a similar way. And, again, it’s a phenomenon but it’s not all-encompassing by any means, there are also plenty of women who are overjoyed to not be the only emotionally mature adult in the relationship!
Ahunter3. I think we might be getting hung up on ‘manly’. Yes, it the gorilla in the room for this discussion but women not into ‘manly’ behavior STILL likely will quickly lose the initial glamor and start to slowly fall out of love if their partner stays vulnerable for too long. You mention that you are a femme hetero male. That does not mean you are not strong because you are not ‘manly’. Heck, you are likely stronger than most surviving in the world. There will be women attracted to that…because you are strong! However, you meet a girl that falls in love with you and then you start getting vulnerable to her showing ‘weakness’ on something like getting depressed or very discouraged or lose your good job and cannot find a replacement in a long time and have to settle and need support and encouragement…and the same thing that will happen to a ‘manly’ manish man in which the same thing happens.
I know it is depressing but, IME, most people (man or woman) can’t stay in love with a long term vulnerable partner. I confess, it makes me a little sad…but I have seen it time and again.
Anyway, back to the thread topic, ISTM that an important part of the issue with men looking to women to help “fix” male problems such as insufficient hugs or other forms of emotional support is that it doesn’t really fix the problem. It’s just reinforcing the conventional gender expectations of men being emotionally withdrawn and women providing emotional nurturing to them.
Well, if societal gender expectations have been telling us for millennia that conventionally “masculine” behavior is desirable in a man, and violating those behavior norms is undesirable, then naturally that’s the behavior that most people will tend to prefer.
To assume that the (socially conditioned) behavior of people in society reliably tells us what’s “natural” for human beings is fallacious. The whole point of social conditioning is that it strongly influences what people “desire” and “like”. Pointing to the existence of such trends in desire and liking does not demonstrate that that’s what people “naturally” or “instinctively” prefer.
I think some others, and definitely me, are comingling strong and manly.
To be manly is to be strong. But not all strong people are ‘manly strong’. No matter the source of your ‘strength’…to lose it and be vulnerable longer term is usually poison to love.
Other than type of woman, there is a lot of “you’re doing it wrong.” I think that there are a wide range of behaviors that men MAY be able to get away with and maybe even enhance their situations. But… they need to do it the right way.
Rock stars are not noted for their stoicism. Actors either. It likely matters how the man does it. If the emoting is more egocentric and less shamefaced and downcast it likely helps.
Sex is a lot bigger investment for women than for men. So they tend to be more judgey, trying to figure out if this guy is worth it, and they get more offers for a lot of their lifetime as well. A man’s investment in sex is close to non-existent, arguably every sexual encounter is a win for a man as I’ve heard some feminists claim. Even if he has to pay child support for a kid he hardly ever seen, in the crude sense maybe that’s better than spending resources on a kid that isn’t even his.
Basically every man is one dimensional and thinks that whatever he’s doing, telling jokes, dressing up, pumpng iron, being stoic, if he does that x1000 it’s going to be better. Too much of anything is typically too much for women, and the stoics and men who ignore their relationship partners have troubles long term in relationships too.
EDIT: I’d add that though perhaps men are seen as “coming up short” (ahem) more often than the reverse, one instance where it’s reversed is when the woman has an illness. I do believe the tales of men leaving their ill wives. Maybe the men no longer see the wives as being beautiful and fertile under those circumstances, but I do think it’s a real thing.
However, in stock trading there is an expression called “don’t fight the market”. This means you have to deal with the world as it is right now and, if you go against it, you will likely be punished. Yes, we should work on what you say to change it longer term. However, that doesn’t help someone RIGHT NOW.
