If blue1981 is right (and I doubt he is; this seems like some BS Jordan Petersen talking point to me, that doesn't reflect the real world I live in, where many regular, even 'beta', guys seem to be married or in some sort of relationship), and women are only attracted to a small percentage of elite men, that surely isn't good for anyone.
It's unrealistic (i.e. women are setting their expectations/sights too high), and in fact MISOGYNIST, because it upholds a patriarchal order in which men are expected to be wealthy/powerful in order to have any value, which is entirely ANATHEMA to what feminists were (supposedly...π€) fighting for, for decades (i.e. an order in which women and men were *equal* and women could be breadwinners, and men could stay at home and raise the kids, without any judgement).
Sorry, but speaking as an *actual* (rather than a mere 'theoretical') progressive (i.e. someone who walks the walk, as much, maybe more, than they merely talk the talk, in contrast to the DNC and most celebrities, who *say* all the right things, but do NONE of them; and notice that, yes, I do, as you say, occasionally bring up some right-wing talking points in chats, because, you know what? I LIVE a progressive, VEGAN, CARBON-NEUTRAL, PRO-FEMINIST, ACTIVE VOLUNTEER/CAMPAIGNING, SOCIALIST lifestyle, but am not afraid of *discussing* difficult non-progressive issues), I say that if SOCIALISM, EGALITARIANISM, FEMINISM and the like is to thrive, we all need to ensure that our ACTIONS speak louder than our words and beliefs. HYPOCRISY is a NO-NO. Living like an *actual* feminist is far more important than simply speaking like one.
And, despite what you may have heard/been told, NO man *or* woman 'can have it all.' Choose a FUCKING lane, preferably one that adheres to actual feminist beliefs, rather than one that adheres to Jordan Petersen's toxic 'alpha male' bullshit.
Like you say, women have a say. Like blue says, woman are in control...
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
...So, the ball is in women's court to shape society in a FEMINIST, EGALITARIAN manner.
Neoliberal, social Darwinist, ME-ME-ME, zero-sum-game attitudes are ANATHEMA to a progressive society. ONLY by ALL committing to cooperation, compromise and sacrifice in a shared socialist, feminist, egalitarian society where we ALL do our bit, whether we're male/female, Black/white, gay/straight, cis/trans, and so on, can we ensure fairness. ANYONE who diverges from this vision will only trigger a domino effect by which other people will rationalise their *own* transgressions ("Well, despite that woman *claiming* to be an 'independent' feminist who believes in equal pay/equal status between women and men, she *only* dates very rich and powerful men, thus, I am NOW going to do all I can to crush other people, including women, to become rich and powerful, so I can thus date/marry elite women.")
It's very VERY fucking simple. Cause and fucking effect. One person or group's actions trigger another person or group's actions, so TAKE FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY of EVERYTHING you do, people.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
a year ago
In other words: You, too, are uncomfortable with women having a say in their own sex lives.
Don't bother to respond, I won't.
reply
share
Corbell (9584)
a year ago
His point about women wanting economic equality and yet only dating men that make MORE than them, is clearly valid.
It is a flaw in the system as we have it set up. And likely, not the only one.
Men are not happy with the situation. And neither are women. Women want committed long term relationships and children. The current situation is failing to give people what they want.
Yet, talking about this, seems to be taboo. Very strange.
Why are you committed to a system that is not working? What is it giving you?
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
Otter is simply a very combative person who treats any attempt to question/interrogate the status-quo/neoliberal consensus as automatically 'toxic'. She' basically the faux-liberal flipside of the far-right/incel moronic Jordan Petersen view of the world, and as the horseshoe theory quite rightly has it (see also white supremacists and Black separatists), such extremists usually have more on common than they realise. They're both invested in a reductive, zero-sum-game, and ultimately patriarchal system.
A post-feminist approach to the world that empowers women to have the same working and employment rights, and pay, as men, as well as the sexual liberty and freedom men have enjoyed for centuries, should be encouraged and promoted. I've always believed in, and championed, it. Any man who isn't making an effort to give his partner an orgasm (assuming sex is important to him), is, frankly, a dud. Men and women should be as attentive as one another when it comes to relationships. No man should take advantage of his partner and expect them to give more than he's willing to provide.
But, we're really not going to get anywhere if women, as well as men, are still wedded to a neoliberal, capitalist, patriarchal view of the world that is fundamentally at odds with a post-feminist ideal. Once again, it is every woman's prerogative to be attracted to, and date, whichever man they want. It's not my place to tell anyone who they should be attracted to.
However, from a feminist POV, it's no good saying "We want men to step aside and make more room for women, when it comes to the social order," BUT "We'll only date men who make a certain amount of money/possess a certain level of power." It's fundamentally contradictory. Where's the incentive for men to take a more egalitarian, pro-feminist approach to society, if women are still pushing them to follow a zero-sum-game/winner-takes-all approach, that says that only powerful/wealthy (i.e. non-feminist/non-egalitarian)...
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
...men are to be valued, particularly when it comes to dating.
There's a real cognitive dissonance between what supposed progressives and feminists say they want from a social POV, and what they actually pursue.
A purely individualist approach which exclusively prizes one's own happiness/self-fulfilment, will inevitably be at odds with a more principled/idealistic approach.
It's intrinsically counterintuitive to say "We need fewer white men in positions of power," and then reserve one's scorn for those white men who *aren't* in positions of power (in some cases, because they've *chosen* to step aside for the greater good, rather than do the hypocritical Justin Trudeau/Keir Starmer/George Clooney/Chris Evans faux-liberal white man thing of speaking like a feminist/anti-racist, whilst monopolising all the positions of status for themselves).
Men need to drop the Donald Trump/Jordan Petersen 'Might Is Right' macho bullshit agenda, but, likewise, some women also need to forego the fundamentally *anti-feminist* "I want a rich man of status to take care of me" Cinderella/Pretty Woman bullshit fantasy.
Instead, GENUINE feminists, should embrace the idea of house-husbands and women who are paid more than their partners.
reply
share
Corbell (9584)
a year ago
Incels are not the problem, they are a result of the problem.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
I agree to an extent. There is NO excuse for hatred towards women/misogyny, but the loneliness and inadequacy that involuntarily celibate individuals feel is, indeed, a consequence of the issue the OP highlights.
That said, no-one is *entitled* to a relationship. However, I also think that people need to be less snooty and more accommodating. No-one should date someone they're not attracted to, but the game-playing bullshit people used to play during courtship has to go. The world, as it stands, has NO time for that nonsense, and all this "I want to be swept off my feet" stuff is a fantasy that belongs in Hollywood movies and fairytales. Real life is bigger than that crap.
reply
share
Corbell (9584)
a year ago
People will want to have fun with relationships and sex, but the underlying assumptions have to be more grounded in reality.
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
How have you made *that* inference?
I don't want any person, especially no woman, to be obliged to be with someone they're not attracted to. Who'd want such a scenario? And who'd want to be partners with someone who didn't love them/felt obliged to be with them?
But I also think far too many women and men are forgoing happiness because they're chasing unicorns.
Like TLC, the *FAR SUPERIOR* Black Girls Band, said "Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls". A much MUCH better message than the frankly *inferior* and relatively shallow Destiny's Child's puerile and neoliberal "No Scrubs" bullshit.
reply
share