Not by my understanding of the word. You are just a currently unattached and looking without current success. @DemonTree would not count you among her “manosphere”.
I don’t think she’d count my one son who just doesn’t think romantic relationships are worth the emotional work involved, for him at this point in his life, there either. I don’t like “herbivore” for him either.
First part of what I was trying to express, mostly yes. But I am not talking just about status; status is one aspect of it. At least not how many would use the word “status” … There are different aspects that we each perceive, not all consciously, as “power” … but not all are necessarily “status”, and to the next part, their weightings are not identical or even necessarily fully shared with the social circle. It can be idiosyncratic or at least quite varied even within a fairly small social circle, even between best friends or sisters. And what us held as higher status within the group is part of it.
Most of the preference between the genders of men often being less comfortable with women of greater power than them, intimidated even, and women not preferring men of lesser power than them, is IMHO sociological. But it is so broadly held across cultures that it may as well be a biological hardwiring. What can change within a generation or is what is considered as a proxy of power, especially those aspects that get considered as status with subgroups.
But those aren’t, and weren’t, the choices; especially if we’re talking about online. Some people, of any gender, are unlucky in who the social groups are who they’re around IRL, and maybe they grew up only knowing people who are mostly in one of those groups or the other, and therefore assume that everybody’s like that so they don’t pack up and move. But while the disadvantage of the net is that anybody, however toxic, can find those who agree with them: the advantage of it is that so can anybody looking for those who aren’t toxic. I will grant that they still might have to know how to look, though as people can stumble into toxic groups they can also stumble into non-toxic ones.
To the extent that social media pushes the toxic groups: that’s the fault of the people running the media. Not of the people pointing out that it isn’t actually “nice” to try to use “niceness” as payment in something thought of as a transaction in which the other person must pay up.
Status is made up of a lot of individual judgements, though. And there’s an entire huge underdog meme. And see below.
In the original meaning of the word, yes, AIUI. In the current meaning of the word, definitely no.
I don’t think “herbivore” even makes any sense. Do these people think that herbivores don’t have sex? Where do they think all those herbivore babies come from?
– the only sense I can make out of it is very nasty: that they’re contrasting it to “predator”. If the only sort of sexual relationship they can imagine is predatory sex – then they’d better not have one.
True.
And I recognize a difference between “power to” and “power over”; and think that a confusion between the two is the source of a whole lot of problems among humans, not only in the sexual area. “Power to” is made up in large part of competence; and competence is always attractive, at least if it’s in an area which the valuer thinks matters. And the rest of “power to” is the ability and/or willingness to refuse to allow someone else to claim “power over” you; which in some cases may be expressed by defying one’s social group, including to choose one’s own area(s) of competence even if they’re not the ones valued by most in that group.
Oh it is a critical difference. And while I was only referencing the “power to” upon consideration your point about the confusion of the two is very key to the “masculinity” portion of this discussion.
Yes of course competence is part of “power to”, and, especially in the American ethos, demonstrated freedom from others having “power over” you and yours. In our cultural ethos the maverick is sexy. There is some appeal of a confident nonconformist able to go their own way. That traditionally has been part of “positive masculinity” - but of course is a characteristic of strength in women as well, even if not stereotyped as “feminine.”
The romantic dream is when that man who is demonstrably without many who have power over him hooks that strength of freedom from power over, to the woman, love of whom is biggest “power over” him that exists. That “power over” him then extends next to loyalty to family and then to, for lack of a better word, tribe.
The distorted “toxic” masculinity emerges when men believe that the effective way to demonstrate “power to” women is to have “power over” them.
My internalized view of my masculinity is heavily influenced by that construct that being free of others having power of me is greatly desired while being very aware that I would do anything for my wife and my kids, and next my work family and closest friends. Again such a view is not exclusively male. But it is stereotypically part of “being a man” in my mindset.
You seem to be arguing that music stars count as “high-status” in society—on which I agree—but then claiming that their high status can’t be a historical side effect of patriarchy because music stars aren’t actually running society, which I think is just silly.
High status in men for women’s mating purposes, as I noted, has traditionally been seen as a man’s ability to confer on his chosen woman “increased wealth, prestige, power, etc.” A man doesn’t have to be literally running society in order to have that ability. And that doesn’t mean that his social status isn’t still shaped by patriarchy.
Typical example of what I have referred to as “Societal Oppression Catch-22, in which oppression is entrenched by setting up societal structures that pressure members of the oppressed group to behave in a certain way, and then mocking them for complying with the behavioral expectations.”
To be fair, there are also numerous gender-swapped examples of women likewise reacting to cultural shifts by taking the advantages of the new system for granted while complaining about losing the advantages of the old system.
For instance, women who expect to have equal status and autonomy in careers, household decision-making, etc., but also expect men always to initiate, and pay for, dates. And then complain about a guy being “cheap” or “ungentlemanly” if he’s reluctant to do so.
This illustrates the problem with incels and why they tend to be so toxic. You want to be a “nice guy”, and you deliberately put it in quotes. It has been my experience that men who describe themselves as “nice guys” are anything but nice to women.
They are usually either abusive, gaslighting assholes, or they pretend to be nice only to get what they want. Incels have no intention of just being good human beings for the sake of it, they have to put on this act and get upset when we women call them out on their crap.
Incels, MRA people, the “manosphere”, all these things contribute to the low opinion of men that women have these days and why I tend to be extra careful when dating men. Honestly sometimes I wish I wasn’t attracted to men at all.
Huh. Pretty much all, nah all, of the long term married couples I know have husbands who would endorse a description of themselves as “nice guys.” To the best of my knowledge very few of them are abusive, gaslighting assholes, or only pretending to be nice. Okay I know an asshole or two. But most of these guys are just nice guys, quotes or not, always had been. They were sweet when first going out with their future wives and devoted to their wives and kids now. Been there often literally in sickness and in health.
I personally endorse myself as “a nice guy”, who was just a “nice guy” when single. Not a player.
Maybe you have some selection bias I dunno, but your insinuation about @scudsucker seems totally in your mind.
At the end of the day, women don’t leave men for that reason. Only a misogynist who has lived under a rock for the past fifty years would believe a statement like that.
Women leave men because they are not respected or emotionally supported, because the man is unfeeling, selfish, cruel, manipulative, or self-absorbed – or they feel frightened for themselves and/or their children. Except for that last one, their reasons are quite similar to the reasons men leave women. Women have jobs now, honey. Although some women are shallow enough that all they seek in a man is more access to material goods, I’m fairly sure they are a minority.
Yeah, I agree with this. I generally describe myself as a nice guy. I have never pretended to want the friendship of a woman when I was interested in something else. I am very capable of actually being friends with women. When I was interested in something more tha just friendship, I would tell the woman in question while stressing that I valued our friendship and did not want to damage it.
The “nice guys” that have often been complained about on the Dope only want sex. They are not interested in friendship. They feel that any romantic relationship is simply their ‘payment’ for sex. They never tell a woman they want to have sex with her. They believe that being ‘nice’ and a ‘friend’ means that one day a woman will see them as an object of affection and ‘reward’ them with sex.
Then you are actually a nice guy, not just a “nice guy”. Anyone openly describing themselves as an incel is not someone I would describe as nice. They identify with an ideology that is very harmful to society and especially to women in general.
Personally I didn’t quite realize how toxic many men were until I transitioned and started dating in my mid-30’s. I of course heard a lot from my cis female friends and acquaintances, but I didn’t realize how bad it was until I experienced it myself. Luckily I am polysexual, so I have other options other than just cis men.
Here’s the problem: pretty every guy thinks of himself as a nice guy. Many, likely most, of us actually are. Our spouses and peers would agree. Even our kids sometimes … But those who are manipulative assholes also honestly think of themselves as nice guys. So if a particular woman, for whatever reason, is having multiple experiences with men who she finds to be assholes, then her experience with self described nice guys is that they are assholes. Not that her choice in men is for shit or that she is the asshole unawares.
One of my sisters was that person. Every man she met was an asshole. Men sucked in her mind. Yeah to those of us looking from the outside the problem was not mostly them. (FWIW she also concluded that all her four sibs and both parents were toxic as well.)
He is using the word in its literal meaning: involuntarily celibate. Which was the point of my response: he may be that but incel currently is an endorsement of a philosophy that he clearly was not signing on to in his post.
No, I wouldn’t. Like many words it has two meanings; in this case, the literal and the ideological. It’s sad if people who want a relationship can’t find one in the long term, and probably a bad sign for a society if the number of such people is growing, but incel ideology is an additional problem - as well as likely harming believers and those around them, it has helped motivate a couple of mass shooters.
According to incels he’d be a ‘volcel’ - voluntarily celibate - and you’re right, I wouldn’t count him either.
I’m not convinced. Sure you can probably find a non-toxic group to discuss knitting or car maintenance, but largely single sex groups discussing dating woes tend to get toxic pretty quickly in my experience, and as for talking about anything political, forget it!
I assumed it’s a contrast to ‘carnivore’, and intended to express passiveness and docility vs someone more go-getting and aggressive. Not a contrast to predatory sex.
Yes, I agree with all this.
It’s a general human tendency, unfortunately.
I really think you’re both wrong, here. People can cheat or leave even when their partner has done nothing wrong. Sometimes they fall out of love, grow apart, are unhappy or frustrated in the relationship and it’s not really anyone’s fault. Some people are just assholes and don’t care if they hurt their partner. And this applies to both men and women. Attracting ‘a man who can provide a better lifestyle’ is not at all a common reason for women to leave, but neither is it fair to say the woman’s partner must have done something to drive her away.
Then he shouldn’t identify as an incel (or involuntary celibate) if he doesn’t fit the type of men who typically choose to identify with that label. It would be like if somebody called themselves a fascist but they were actually pretty liberal. If they call themselves a fascist, I’m going to treat them like one.
Point taken. Being an asshole is not a gendered quality. But if there is good reason to leave, it almost never is, I just saw someone who could boost my desired lifestyle up a notch. That’s the kind of belief that truly is toxic and has some mainstream male supporters apparently.
This is basically a “gotcha” argument that automatically classifies any attractive or successful man as evil. What is a man supposed to do in order to not be an Evil Patriarch? Stab himself to death?
Well to start with your response was to claim about
which includes, I again point out, most men, includes @DocCathode, and includes me.
@DemonTree has written here of men simply bemoaning that they are not having a great time finding romantic partnership and being attacked. You have demonstrated that there are some who do that. I stand by my belief though: mostly those of us having a difficult time finding romantic partners and willing to share that are nice guys and nice women, nice people, and most of the time they find empathy here and in the real world. Even occasional constructive advice. Clearly not always.
Not to me. It seems like one of the standard arguments that boil down to “anyone in a group I don’t like is automatically evil”. Note that there is no “here is how men can attract women without being an Evil Patriarch” option.
I’ll also point out that this line of argument helps push men towards things like the incel subculture. Both because it encourages an attitude of “I’m going to be considered evil no matter what, so I might as well just be evil”, and it essentially declares their worldview to be true: that you actually do get women by being misogynistic and tyrannical.
You continue to ignore that I made a distinction between guys who are actually nice and “nice guys” in the incel sense who pretend to be nice to try to get what they want. You act like I am lumping all men together when I never did.
But those who are manipulative assholes also honestly think of themselves as nice guys. So if a particular woman, for whatever reason, is having multiple experiences with men who she finds to be assholes, then her experience with self described nice guys is that they are assholes. Not that her choice in men is for shit or that she is the asshole unawares.