Men's rights movement - opinions

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I think part of the problem is that our culture hasn't done as much to get men up to speed on the skill sets that were previously classified as "feminine." I have known a number of men who have suffered serious difficulties with custody issues post-divorce, and IMO much of this was due to simply not possessing a level of social or household management skills. For instance, I knew a divorced dad who put himself into crash and burn mode at work because he chose equestrian camp as his summer daycare option. Most women would know that was just an activity and it wouldn't work without a nanny as primary care provider. Also, men are only slowly realizing that when women have their own money, they expect men to pay more attention to their own appearance. I'm bored with pointing out to man-plainers that the reason why they think women are hard to get or hard to please is that they don't even see 70% of the female population in the first place. Like, "Okay, she's way more attractive than you, and the only reason she dated you in the first place is because you practically made it a part-time job to kow-tow to her, and you think the terms of contract are suddenly going to change for the better if/when you lock it down?"

User avatar
Stahlmann
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by Stahlmann »

...
Last edited by Stahlmann on Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

SilverElephant
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:40 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by SilverElephant »

steveo73 wrote: I don't believe that these alpha males exist. What constitutes the alpha male. The big tough fighter. The smart guy. The rich guy. It's a stupid concept. People are complex and go for people that appeal to them. The Alpha male concept is just another stupid load of crap some moron came up with.

Different people want different things. Basically everyone can get laid if they don't have stupid unrealistic standards for them personally. I think the world is a great place and these whiners need to start taking responsibility for their lives.
I had a much longer response typed up that the forum swallowed. My basic premises are:

"Alpha" and "beta" male are presented as dichotomy - e.g. you're either in one camp or in the other. In reality it's a gradual curve. But what you present as "standards" is simply an honest appraisal of one's attractiveness - and here it seems very, very clear to me that a highly attractive individual (high perceived fertility and beauty for women, high perceived amount of resources for men - which can manifest as either high physical prowess or high income, depending on what's valued more locally) will have more options than an unattractive individual. This is not simply "wanting different things", it's a clear case of more or less options. You can be picky if you've got options - you can't if you don't. Most commonly the "alpha male" is simply taken to be an arbitrary percentile of men at the top.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by steveo73 »

ThisDinosaur wrote:If you define feminism as a belief that people of all genders and races should have equal access to resources, jobs, education, etc., then I'm pro-feminist. OHOH, if feminism involves giving certain institutional advantages to non whites, non males, etc., then I think its a form of discrimination that leads to a backlash by the so-called "privileged".
Exactly but a couple of points of qualification.

1. It's not that bad for men. One thing that should be recognised is that men can have great lives.
2. It was never that good for men. The idea that there was some golden age where men went to work and were respected and women stayed at home is I think crap.
3. I am personally offended to think that my daughter or my wife should not be able to vote or have great careers if they want too.

We should though as a society state that there should be no privileges given people because of the gender or colour. We should have equal opportunity and that is where it should end.

User avatar
Stahlmann
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by Stahlmann »

...
Last edited by Stahlmann on Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by steveo73 »

7Wannabe5 wrote:I'm bored with pointing out to man-plainers that the reason why they think women are hard to get or hard to please is that they don't even see 70% of the female population in the first place. Like, "Okay, she's way more attractive than you, and the only reason she dated you in the first place is because you practically made it a part-time job to kow-tow to her, and you think the terms of contract are suddenly going to change for the better if/when you lock it down?"
I hate the word man-plainers but this is 100% correct. Some guys can get good looking women without an issue. Some guys can pull the occasional good looking woman. Most guys can't. Some of the majority of guys think that they are entitled to the good looking woman and simply don't change their perspective.

I married a good looking woman. I definitely have never kow-tow'ed to her. If anything I've become nicer as we've been together longer. My wife does everything - cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids, she works, she doesn't spend money.

Guys need to realise that a woman's worth is based on more than looks. They also need to realise that they can get a woman if they start looking for a good woman rather than a good looking woman.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by steveo73 »

Stahlmann wrote:And why do we install so much self-entilement in women as society?
I simply don't believe this. I think that this is specific women. There is a very very simple way of dealing with women like this. You next them.

I also don't believe in hypergamy. This is again some men and some women who are going to cheat if something better comes along. It's normal but it's not everyone.

User avatar
Stahlmann
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by Stahlmann »

...
Last edited by Stahlmann on Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6352
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by Ego »

SilverElephant wrote: But what you present as "standards" is simply an honest appraisal of one's attractiveness - and here it seems very, very clear to me that a highly attractive individual (high perceived fertility and beauty for women, high perceived amount of resources for men - which can manifest as either high physical prowess or high income, depending on what's valued more locally) will have more options than an unattractive individual.
To add extra levels of complexity to it, we are seeing a shift in what is considered "attractive". Once upon a time the man was the breadwinner and the woman the nurturer so it was natural that male resources and female perceived fertility were the yardstick. Today, 40% of households have female breadwinners. Additionally, a lot of people specifically do not want to have kids. So it would stand to reason that the 1950s model is no longer the heterosexual beauty standard for either gender.

To add even more complexity, it used to be the case that very successful men married women who were content to stay home and take care of the kids. Today, those men marry women who are successful in their own right. This social shift towards assortative mating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating) is responsible for some of the income inequality we see today. Power couples vs traditional couples.

So, if you are looking for a future power partner stop looking at the beach or the bar and start looking in the AP Biology classroom.

ETA, Stahlmann, if you are having such difficulty then you've got to change your standards. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

User avatar
Stahlmann
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:05 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by Stahlmann »

...
Last edited by Stahlmann on Sun Aug 12, 2018 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by steveo73 »

Stahlmann wrote:
steveo73 wrote:
Stahlmann wrote:And why do we install so much self-entilement in women as society?
I simply don't believe this. I think that this is specific women. There is a very very simple way of dealing with women like this. You next them.


I also don't believe in hypergamy. This is again some men and some women who are going to cheat if something better comes along. It's normal but it's not everyone.
I mean when I have standards I am labelled as misogynist. Women can have horrendous standards... and nothing happens (at least when they are at their peak years, then they lower standards).

And when we talk about hypergamy. Who recovers faster after breakup? Who has options to choose? Who has next partner after 2-3 weeks? 40% women have backup plan (another man). How many guys can afford it?

Man are disposable. Personally, I am not going to follow this trend.
Women are also disposable. It's the human condition.

Honestly my take for you personally is to ignore all of this stuff. You can create a great life for yourself. Women aren't against you. If you get lucky and get a good woman it is fantastic. If the relationship ends it ends. There is no need for a conspiracy theory to rationalise how life works.

I basically agree that feminism is evil. No specific group of people deserve specific advantages.

At the same time the majority of men and woman meet, fuck and have kids if they choose too. All you have to do is be a good man on your terms not on what you think women want. If you do that and give it a shot I think you will get lucky.

User avatar
C40
Posts: 2747
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by C40 »

Ah shit. I just typed a reply for you, Stahlman, and it got lost in a circle of forum login page... So I'll retype a shorter/blunter version.

First, I see you live in Poland. I don't know how different the sex/dating/relationship landscape is there. It could be that your opinions are completely true there, and mine are completely true here in the U.S. But really, it appears that you just want to be mad. It also appears that you're having a very hard time understanding women's side of the current sex/dating/relationship landscape, and that is causing you some trouble. Because then your side- the men's side, is all you understand so it feels unfair. This happens for a lot of women, too, who don't understand what a burden it is, for example, for men to make the first move, to ask them out, to puruse them, etc.
Spartain Warrior:
OTOH, I believe there is evidence that sex is more common and more available to all in societies that are considered more egalitarian or "matriarchal". Even outside humans--aren't bonobos matriarchal?

C40:
You are right, ATMO. If you haven't already read Sex At Dawn, and want to read about this, he (Chris Ryan) discusses what you're talking about quite a bit in the book (and also bonobos a lot)

Stahlman:
Can you show us this argumentation?
I heard the gist, but I don't buy it. More data about humans (not bonobos), please.

C40:
Yep. Here you go. Only ~5% of the book is about bonobos

Stahlman:
Could you provide some personal insight to the discussion about this book?
I have spent so many hours with MSM psych-evo, that's a little bit difficult to grasp that ,,weee, there were cultures were people had sex like bonobos!". And you brought this counterargument :P .

I have heard that's difficult to ,,overthrow" MSM psych-evo (as stated on wiki about reception about ,,Sex at dawn").
So, Spartan says there is more sex when things are more matriarchal, and I confirm. You ask for "Argumentation" so I, again, direct you to a book that describes multiple cultures which are more matriarchal than the current U.S. one and where sex is more common. Now you're saying, what, that you won't believe it? Ok, that's your problem.

You need personal insight? Fine. In my own experiences (which are many), aside from standard compatibility stuff, there are two factors that when present make (good) sex more likely. One is if the woman is sexually submissive. The other is if she's a Feminist. It's most likely if she's both. It's least likely if she is religious and conservative (which generally correlate with more Patriarchy).

Riggerjack's advice to not be scared of rejection is probably the best thing for most guys your age (college/university). The other is to understand women better. In our current sex/dating/relationship landscape, there are both pros and cons for men and for women. Understanding them helps you navigate that landscape with more success. You seem to be having a difficult time understanding the cons and burdens that currently exist for women. You're comparing the cons for men to the pros for women and declaring that it's not fair. First, you're wrong. And second, even if the scales are tipped a bit one way, whooptie-fucking-do, it doesn't matter that much.

In your own personal life, what do you want with respect to sex/dating/relationships? (Serious question). And how are you currently trying to make it happen? Are you hoping that the entire cultural landscape of sex/dating/relationships will adjust to make it feel more fair for you, so then so then you can get what you want? That's not going to happen, and wishing for it is going to make you feel worse and worse.

As I stated earlier in this thread, Chris Ryan (author of Sex At Dawn) has a very good understanding of the current plight and frustrations that you seem to have. He voices a ton of frustrations with the current landscape, many of which are probably aligned with yours. And he has good advice. well, not really advice fed out like you may expect. He has thoughts and life experiences and so on that will help you.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by steveo73 »

Ego wrote:ETA, Stahlmann, if you are having such difficulty then you've got to change your standards. You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
This is my advice to Stahlmann. The problem with discussing these topics is once you are into it you are probably creating a self-fulfilling philosophy.

I use the story of my friend. He was always ugly and dumb. He is a great guy but he was always in the bottom classes at school. I remember going to the pub years after school and there were these moles there paying him out for being ugly.

Fast forward a number of years and he does something about it. He tries Internet dating. He is now married with 3 kids. Yes his wife isn't attractive but who cares.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6352
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by Ego »

Stahlmann wrote:
Well, I don't care. I want to present in this topic that men are discriminated nowadays more than women before 70's.
I think it says a lot about the state of the world that you think this is true. I can't speak for Poland because I haven't been there since the early 1990s but I can speak for the US because I grew up here in the 70s. Not even close.

SilverElephant
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:40 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by SilverElephant »

Stahlmann wrote: The problem is women set so high standards that there is no entry for many men. There are no ,,virgin neckbeard women who live in parents' basement". Now you can see how gender stereotypes affects men too.

Or there are many men who opt out due to the fact they see no benefits in relationship with another gender (like herbivore men in Japan).
I get the feeling that you're complaining about women somehow being shallow for not being attracted to virgin neckbeard men who live in parents' basement? You're still seeing this in terms of agency or rational thought, and, what's more important, you're somehow offended by this (judging from the tone of your post).

The female equivalent of "virgin neckbeard men who live in parents' basement" isn't "virgin neckbeard women who live in parents' basement". What you describe is basically "unmanly man", so what we're looking for is "non-female female". This will, in all likelihood, and as harsh and politically incorrect as it sounds, simply mean ugly girls. Or girls that act in thoroughly un-female-like fashion, i.e. they completely fail to trigger circuits that signal "female" in a guy's brain.

I'm convinced that modern gender stereotypes have nothing to do with this. Sexy beautiful women have always been considered attractive, and what counts as sexy and beautiful really hasn't changed all that much in the last 10,000 years (big eyes, symmetrical face, long hair, 0.7 hip-to-waist-ratio, medium-to-large breasts, etc.). Same for guys (has resources in terms of money or strength or whatever is considered an energy cache in that culture).

The reason women aren't attracted to virgin neckbeard men who live in parents' basement is because the vast majority of these men simply offer no value as a provider. That this might be because of overpopulation resulting in diminished opportunities for these men is of no consequence to women.

I've always been of the opinion that men are getting the better end of the deal in this specific case. Assuming average intelligence, it's entirely possible for a homely overweight neckbearded guy living in his parent's basement with no education and earning prospects to shave, get into shape, get a degree at the local community college, move out of his parent's basement and land a girl. A woman's looks are more or less fixed (unless she spends liberal amounts of money on multiple plastic surgeries) and deteriorate more or less rapidly (depending on how much care she's taking of her body).

Another important point is that this is a highly dynamic situation. At 15 I was literally invisible to girls because I was the nerdy scrawny guy with weird glasses who spent all his time coding and playing video games. At 20 I got a tiny bit of attention because I was pursuing a physics degree (considered to be of high earning potential) and had honed my wit vis-à-vis girls (teasing and the likes). At 25 I was doing OK because I'd gotten into great shape as well, had just obtained what is considered a valuable degree and had a few notches in my belt, giving me some confidence. At 29 I'm getting tons of attention because I take good care of myself physically and mentally, can confidently talk to and tease girls and am additionally exuding the confidence of a guy who's in a very good position financially and generally in control of his life - on the other side, girls have passed their zenith when it comes to fertility, beauty and attractivity. Time is actually in favor of men here, but it very, very much depends on how you spend your twenties (much like your finances depend a lot on what you spend in your twenties).

(I'm aware there's more to a woman then her looks; and a charming and caring nature with decent brains will go some way when looks can't. What I'm talking about are the basics. The edges are somewhat fuzzier.)

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Stahlmann said: And how can men avoid 70% of women? Maybe I lack perspective as men.
http://pleated-jeans.com/2015/08/05/if- ... shion-ads/
SilverElephant said: The female equivalent of "virgin neckbeard men who live in parents' basement" isn't "virgin neckbeard women who live in parents' basement". What you describe is basically "unmanly man", so what we're looking for is "non-female female". This will, in all likelihood, and as harsh and politically incorrect as it sounds, simply mean ugly girls. Or girls that act in thoroughly un-female-like fashion, i.e. they completely fail to trigger circuits that signal "female" in a guy's brain.
A lot of this is due to behaviors that can be learned and unlearned. For instance, one mistake females often make in this regard is to flirt in a manner that might be described as "monkey pokes the tiger with a stick." The same/opposite mistake that males make might be described as "kid gloves and butterfly kisses." The reason why these types of mistakes are so common is that it is natural for humans to semi-consciously model the behavior they want from another person. The fact that women are often turned on by masculine/dominant behavior is sometimes misinterpreted as being attracted to "jerks", but it's not that. It's just that what women particularly crave in relationship with a man isn't something they can get from a relationship with a female friend. For instance, I like it when I try to get out of bed in the middle of the night and my sleeping BF unconsciously locks his muscular arm around me so that I can't get out. So, I can empathize that maybe it would be his preference that I didn't chew tobacco and spit it on the sidewalk.

Also, it's no use hoping for a woman who isn't crazy to want you, because there is no universe in which holding the desire for somebody to pin your azz down and f*ck your brains out is consistent with sanity.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by Riggerjack »

Well, herein lies the problem. Why do you support this ruthless system? ,,Just at next corner, you will find love of your life!; Just man up!". I think it's the ultimate proof of gynocentric society: you are being rated as the man or not... The joke is that women decide about it :lol:
Every system is ruthless. Anyone who says differently is selling you something. (RUS's? I don't think they exist.)

I'm 46 and married, looking forward to retiring soon. I am almost completely removed from the game. If you are looking for my support, you are doomed to frustration, I'm afraid.

If you want sympathy, I just don't have any. Life is tough. Waiting for the world to arrange itself to your convenience seems an awful waste, but do as you like.

Now that may seem harsh, and unhelpful, but that is not my intent. I am trying to help you understand that this is under your control. Men have it so much easier in the sexual arena than women.

Yes, you are expected to put forth more effort, more money, etc than an equally attractive woman. Sucks, huh? But more to the point, as a man, there are many options you have to improve your attractiveness, that women just don't have.

Say you a born a natural 3 on a scale from 1-10. As a woman, you can work out, and develop your body, improve your posture, spend way too much effort on makeup and shoes. But these are all passive. Your options to actively attract the man you want are limited. Best case scenario, you can work your way up to a 6.

But a man, what you are born with has far less to do with your attractiveness. Building confidence, best done by doing a bit of everything, especially anything that scares you, takes you from a 3 to a 6 by itself. Spend some time in a gym, learn to dance, make some money, the possibilities are only limited by you.

BTW, I knew a guy in the service, couldn't dance at all. Til one of the girls showed him that all he had to do was go on the floor, tap his toe, snap his fingers, and let her dance all over him. And he Looked Damned Good, doing it. She wasn't with him, she was making a point. Which was good, he did just fine that night.

I won't encourage you to try lowering your standards. Hell, for every beautiful woman out there, there's a guy tired of her BS. So go get your hottie. And when you get that out of your system, I would encourage you to shoot higher, not lower. And someday, you will realize that the beauty queens are not worth the BS, and start to find other features more important. If you are stuck on finding your perfect 10, you will fuck up every relationship until then, so start there. Save yourself and any potential girls a lot of pain.

But if you think you can whine your way into her panties, you better look like a young Brad Pitt. The rest of us had to do some work, you can too.

SilverElephant
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:40 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by SilverElephant »

@ Stahlmann

I do agree with your premise that there is an overly developed sense of entitlement among women as to what they "deserve" and "won't settler for". As far as I can see this is in part because of the MSM spreading a specific image of what romance, courtship and marriage should be like. So I'm with you there.

The thing is, though, that just because a large segment of the population adheres to that delusion does not mean you have to, too. Much like spending your money on consumer goods and complaining about not getting ahead is optional, so is chasing hot ditzy girls who think they deserve a prince.

Obviously it can be frustrating as a young guy to be seemingly priced out of the dating market. But you're really not, much like not spending your paycheck on junk while spending it on cash-producing assets is actually a long-time investment. People will shake their head or laugh at you. In time, you might come out on top. See mine and Riggerjack's comments about age working in your favor.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Riggerjack said: Yes, you are expected to put forth more effort, more money, etc than an equally attractive woman. Sucks, huh? But more to the point, as a man, there are many options you have to improve your attractiveness, that women just don't have.

Say you a born a natural 3 on a scale from 1-10. As a woman, you can work out, and develop your body, improve your posture, spend way too much effort on makeup and shoes. But these are all passive. Your options to actively attract the man you want are limited. Best case scenario, you can work your way up to a 6.
I definitely do not wish to detract from your point that men largely make their own luck in this realm, but women also have options beyond the purely passive, especially if they aren't primarily interested in "pretty, pretty Princess" validation. My perspective is something like post-feminist-neo-primitive, so I believe that all humans will benefit from personal growth and expression of both masculine and feminine energy in a variety of realms, but that sexual/romantic current will run strongest when you purposefully choose to evince strong polarity in the moment or context of particular relationship. So, any female who would maybe be rated a 7 when captured in still photography, who has read a couple books written on such topics as charm, sexual dichotomy theory or the arts of the geisha with open mind, will likely do better in the dating market than a woman who would maybe rate a passive 8.5, but does not know how to signal availability, semi-consciously engages in pursuit and/or persists in antagonistic filtering.

The key piece of advice that I tried to instill in my DD25 and any of her friends who would listen was "ONLY
take men at their literal word." The reason why this piece of advice is key is that it is a distillation of an associated behavior set that will signal that you respect somebody and do not wish to inhibit their freedom, and it reflexively offers you the same benefit in your masculine energy. The equally strong polar complement to a behavior set that signals respect is a behavior set that signals that you cherish your partner. Since the subconscious critical battle between any two people hoping to relate in their polar energies generally gridlocks in something like "I can't/won't respect you because you don't/won't cherish me" and vice-versa, it is important to learn that the best way out is to work on your own level of self-respect or self-cherishing. Same holds especially true if you are feeling out-of-sorts with the entire population you find attractive.

Anyways, that is sexual dichotomy theory in a nutshell. In my experience, it works. However, my personal situation at this moment in time is that I have recently suffered a number of failures in my masculine energy (business/projects), and I have once again put on the same stupid 20 lbs due to self-indulgent foodie-ism and I am severely grouchy due to impending menopause, so not exactly glowing with self-cherishment, YET I am also sunk in a pit of guilt because I am self-identifying as "shameless heartbreaker" due to the continuing fall-out of my poly-amorous practice. So, I kind of just want to run away to Brazil and make a fresh start. So, grain of salt...etc. etc.

Scott 2
Posts: 2820
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:34 pm

Re: Men's rights movement - opinions

Post by Scott 2 »

Find the person you enjoy being, then find someone who shares those values.

Appearance, for the most part, will be an emergent attribute. Maybe the person who is into fashion and triathlons is"hotter", but if you hate shopping and exercise, they're also a dumb choice.

A lot of the "make yourself better" advice in this thread centers on becoming a person who conforms to media driven beauty ideals, so you can be with a person that also values conformation with those ideals. Technically that is a form is shared values, but if it's not the lifestyle you prefer, is going to be an unsatisfying ride, long term.

IMO the problem arises when the other person is a scored prize to be won. They're already both objectified and on a pedestal. Add on performance to win them, and of course that leads to a problematic relationship. It mirrors many of the traps we see in consumerism.

Locked