My problem is that feminists will go to the ends of the earth to rationalize a claim that men are genetically deficient, rather than admit it’s sexist bullshit.
So, knowing that humanism has a separate meaning, unrelated to your jihad to marginalize and destroy feminism, your interest in creating a new meaning for the word is frankly bizarre.
The true alternative is ending sexism when you see it: including the idea that women are naturally better parents than men, that children don’t really need fathers, and the idea that women are entitled to alimony for divorcing.
Women are not entitled to alimony. The lower- or non-earning spouse is. Alimony is to compensate the spouse who spend time on unpaid work for the benefit of the family. Long term stay at home fathers would also get alimony upon divorce same as long term stay at home mothers.
Feminists are precisely the ones who argue against women being better natural parents. We are vocal about paternity leaves, baby changing tables in men’s room, getting men involved in the second shift, etc. More than anything else, the low participation of men in household and childcare work makes professional gender equality difficult, and most feminists realize this.
Somehow I don’t see a lot of antifeminists rallying men to do their kids’ laundry, do more drop off and pick up, pack their lunch, etc.
Except that being nice does get them somewhere – it gets them to the point of doing the right thing and being a decent person, and being recognized by other decent people (men and women) as such. Unless, of course, they were only being nice because they thought it would get them sex.
What do you mean, “friendship”? I definitely agree that nobody is in any way obligated to be friends with somebody they want to date if that person doesn’t want to date them. Nor is there anything “shallow” about saying “What I want with you is dating rather than friendship, so if you won’t date me then I’m outta here”.
But if somebody strikes up a “friendship” with someone they’re interested in just as a cover for their romantic interest, and doesn’t actually want to be friends with them unless it’s eventually going to provide an opportunity to get into their pants—then yeah, I think “shallow” is a pretty valid description of such a strategy.
Nonsense. Nobody in this thread is in any way endorsing the provocative suggestions made in Keller’s article that men are in any way genetically inferior.
The biological fact that the Y chromosome is, genetically speaking, comparatively “deficient” in genes just means that the Y chromosome carries many fewer genes than the X chromosome. Nothing about that fact implies any actual inferiority in men as persons, and nobody here is claiming that it does, so you should stop being oversensitive about it. At the very least, you should stop falsely attributing that claim to “feminists” in general.
I am not tying to start a debate or put down women… this is just an observation… it could be wrong…
But, lots of women, until they gain a bit of maturity (mid or late 20s?) seem attracted to the bad boy/tough guy persona.
I think this is the “nice guy” as losing dynamic thing that MRA talk about…
This doesn’t change anything, whether true or not. If men are only acting nice because they think it will lead to sex, they’re not really being nice. Being nice means not manipulating someone or acting in a deceptive manner, among other things.
No one is entitled to sex.
Very true. Even more true is the fact that no amount of pretending to be nice will make anybody attracted to you.
Attraction is what it is, the heart wants what it wants, etc. etc. etc. If there really are a lot of men laboring under the delusion that they can cause a woman to be attracted to them just by demonstrating “nice” behavior, then both feminism and antifeminism are doing them a great favor by explaining to them that that’s not how attraction actually works. Let’s hope they get the message.
[QUOTE=LinusK]
The problem is that when those guys wake up, and realize being nice won’t get them anywhere. Then they feel like they’ve been lied to. And they’re right.
[/QUOTE]
No, not really. Any more than women have been “lied to” when they’re constantly told that “beauty is only skin deep” or fed with hopeful Prince Charming narratives about dashing powerful guys falling for ordinary women (Jane Eyre, anybody?).
Everybody absorbs a certain amount of cultural fairytale about average people somehow scoring partners who are way out of their league in terms of status and/or attractiveness. Most grownups eventually find out for themselves that romance generally doesn’t work that way. But most of them manage to avoid throwing tantrums about it all over the internet, or trying to blame other people because they’ve been “lied to”.
That’s not a demonstration, it’s an assertion, and I’m not clear why anyone should take your assertion seriously. It seems to be predicated on the idea that, if a group isn’t being persecuted as much as humanly possible, then they aren’t bring persecuted at all.
Have you tried reading any part of this thread? Because there’s been tons of examples in here. It might help, though, if while reading the thread, you kept in mind what actual feminists mean when they talk about patriarchy, as opposed to what you want them to mean.
B.S.!
What intellectually infentile and emotionally broken men have you been hanging out with to enable you to reach this idiotic conclusion?
I’m not denying such men exists. They do. Look no further than the MRA. However, most well adjusted adults are able to understand the dynamics of friendships and romantic relationships and how to deal with the fact that one party or the other is under no obligation to have sex with you because you’ve been kind and showered them with gifts. Those that do are essentially prostituting themselves and if that is the kind of relationship that men you are talking about expect then they deserve every bit of disappointment they get in the end.
Aside: Dear og, this is tiresome dreck you keep posting… :smack:
I have a few problems with that narrative.
-
It’s too compartmentalized and premeditated. For that strategy to make any sense, you’d have to be consistent with it from the moment you met someone, lest they get to know what you’re really like. You’d have to know, from the start, that this is someone you want to have sex with, but don’t want to be friends with. Do you make those decisions right away when you meet someone? I don’t. I may tolerate them, I may like them, I may start falling for them, and it may change from one to another as I know them better. I find relationships, friendly or romantic, to be fluid and evolving, and not prone to an “I know exactly what I want from you and exactly how I’ll try to get it” approach.
-
As clairobscur said, if it was just about sex they wouldn’t be so focused on one person and so disappointed when it goes unrequited. And that’s not to say that they feel entitled to sex. We weren’t entitled to a new bicycle on Christmas morning when we were kids, but we could still be disappointed not to get it.
-
I don’t get the level of vitriol directed at these guys, even if the allegation were true. He was dishonest with someone to get what he wanted? People do that all the time, and yet the scorn here is worse than would be heaped on a used car salesman. A woman thought she was making a new friend, and then didn’t. Wise up and move on. If the guy spent six months pretending to be her friend then that is his crime, it is also his punishment; he wasted that time he could have used to find someone else.
And there’s this:
Couldn’t we turn that around; any woman who makes friends with a guy and isn’t prepared to find out that he has romantic feelings as well is too naive to be making friends? When he takes her at her word and feels misled, it’s his fault for not knowing how the game is played and what she really meant. When she feels misled for trusting him, it’s still his fault for being misleading.
None of which is to say that the guy is blameless when a friendship ends this way. I just think there are other explanations. They let their emotions get too far ahead of the situation; they may be picturing a white picket fence and 2.6 children before they’ve even asked her out. The relationship flowchart has the arrows going to the wrong boxes. That can end badly. I just don’t automatically assume the most malicious and conniving explanation for their behavior.
Why?
Ah. My mistake. Being male is a deficiency.
Apropos, I recall hearing some time ago that by age 25 a woman should be aware that her male friends want to **** her. The point being, that they want to **** her. Not oppress her. Unless you’re a feminist, of course, in which case all sex is oppression, right? (‘feminists’ who fell for the old ‘its just about equality’ line get a pass on this, but should wake up and find out what feminism is).
What you learn from it is up to you. I can’t learn things for you.
That’s a good point. I’ve said it before, but the belief that there’s “one” out there for you is a Disney fairy-tale. Too many people believe finding the “one” will make their lives complete, when the reality is that they need to work on making themselves complete.
Men are deficient in the boobs and vagina area. Women are deficient in the twig and berries area. Women are deficient in y chromosomes and men are deficient in that last x.
So at least us men aren’t lonely in our deficiencies; women have them too.
Everything you said is equally true of feminists.