Nah, you're good. If anything I was looking to reinforce your point.
The bear, and us being from Mars and Venus
- Thread starter soliloquy
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
TheBlackBard
SS.org Regular
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2020
- Messages
- 1,298
- Reaction score
- 1,765
Ah gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.
narad
Progressive metal and politics
I don't know man. I don't think you have to make an excuse for being treated rudely, even if the underlying situation was that they weren't wanting you to stick around.
That's a fair statement, though I think being in a situation with alcohol and presumably a lot of lurking predators (no idea who might've helped themselves before I got there), she probably wasn't as tactful as one typically would be in a different setting.
Being rejected (even rudely) based on "assumptions" is part of the "other side". But I still think that's a drop in the bucket compared to what anxiety she felt having me there.
Whoman Bean
Pointy only.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2020
- Messages
- 179
- Reaction score
- 563
Has anyone asked a bear if he rather be in the woods with a man than some random woman he's never met?
soliloquy
Well-Known Member
I hope you realize that just because there are stats out there, there isn't much being done about it. Case in point: murdered indigenous women; rape cases world wide; etc.
Additionally, as per my comment, in line with your screenshot is saying: men are commiting suicide at a higher rate than women. Additionally, men that are marginalized, or part of the LGBTQ2S+; or are struck with poverty. Support is provided for those communities. Support is NOT provided to "men".
Difference is that the gender of man is seen as secondary; other identities take precedence.
Further info:
I'm oversimplifying this:
1) south Korea is an advanced and developed country. Out of all developed countries, SK is experiencing the lowest fertility rates. This will impact their future development; taking care of an aging population; etc
2) SK is experiencing one of the highest (if not then the highest) rates for divorce and less and less people are getting married
3) women are fighting for equal pay for equal work. Comparing to other developed countries, SK is really lagging behind in gender pay equality.
4) women want equal support in politics and not be given the token "female" position where they act as puppet.
5) women are demanding that men take more ownership over relationships romantically, and also with their families; to cook/clean and help out with kids.
6) men are retaliating that men get paid more for bina fide reason, and they are not being sexist or misogynistic. They don't trust women for falsely accusing men for sexual assault. They also are fighting back that the reason why men shouldn't do house chores, and should get paid for more is because they have to deal with mandatory conscription where as women don't.
7) men are also retaliating that women are outpacing men in schools, getting jobs that were "traditionally men" and thus, are losing status. What was guaranteed to them before in a patriarchal world is no longer the case.
For further info:
Moongrum
Well-Known Member
LOL that's an interesting justification
I know it's a nuanced issue, but appreciate the tldr.
narad
Progressive metal and politics
I mean, you gotta get precise about something and stick with it. You mentioned Andrew Tate being right (red flag right there) and that if you go to these websites, they don't list gendered stats on suicide. I google it, planning to then go to the website and verify this, but rather the answer is embedding right in the top of the results and specifically mentions the increased suicide rate of men. I can't imagine a clearer counterexample to what you were saying. Like I couldn't even complete my intended process before accidentally disproving it.
narad
Progressive metal and politics
Yea, maybe a somewhat related anecdote. I sometimes come into my building, which is a tall apartment building, late at night. When you enter there is a glass door, you insert a key, and it opens, you go into a small area where you wait for the elevator. I was coming back one night, put the key in, as I'm stepping through the door I see a girl waiting for the elevator which was just arriving. She saw me, and booked it out of the waiting area, out of the building altogether. Like 0 tact or any inclination to disguise the leaving for anything other than fleeing from being in an elevator with me.
I don't exactly what to feel in these situations. One one hand, I get it. If I'm a predator, we're about to get into an elevator together, I could get off on her floor or find out which floor she's on, whatever. And it also feels weird to me to be so overtly recognized as a threat that booking it the fuck out of the building immediately is the best option she could come up with. I don't think about it too much because hey, I get home faster, but I think it's kind of interesting. Is it a burden on me to cater to her threat assessment? Should I make note when a girl is waiting in the elevator area and just sort of hang out checking my mailbox until she's gone? If so, what if she only flees when it's a foreign guy that steps into the waiting area? Should I cater to her racial profiling as well as her gender profiling?
RevDrucifer
Well-Known Member
Hahahah I learned in my teen years that for every 5 people that view my personality as charismatic, there’s at least 1 who thinks I’m an over the top fuckhead and I became quite accepting of that “Ew” response in high school.
I can totally see how people could/would take it offensively, I mean, the reaction is offensive at face value, but once you add in a few hundred years of dudes being dumbasses to women, or the possibility that the reaction came out wrong on the other side or was interpreted wrong on the receiver’s end or just the fact that some people can look across the room and clearly tell they want no part of you, I think in a lot of cases, there’s justification in there.
At the end of the day, there’s a million reasons why someone could have that reaction and the receiver will rarely get insight into a single one of them. The ‘nice guys’ get hung up on this shit, usually because they aren’t self-aware enough to realize they’re the exact types pushing women towards the bear. “I have this, that and that, therefore I should get this exact reaction/acceptance from every woman I approach”……that ain’t how it works.
soliloquy
Well-Known Member
I think you misunderstand the whole concept here. I am not saying that Tate is right. I'm saying that there is a reason why he's popular. Shit he does is to twist, manipulate and vilify facts. As such, he isn't exactly wrong, when he is pigeon-holing reality to his warped view. Doing so is letting more people to follow him.
This concept is also nothing new. Spreading false information easily seduces those who are seeking it out, or generally have mistrust towards a system in place.
just to drill it in and clarify any misunderstandings here: I am not supporting Tate, Peterson, Rogan, Musk or any other problematic figures. I am saying there is a reason why people flock to them, giving them more popularity and influence. If someone is blatantly lying (our favorite oompa-loompa stating to inject bleach as to combat COVID, as an example), and there are mountains of evidence against them that they are lying, that is one thing. But if they are saying something with a grain of truth hidden in their words, it portrays a completely different argument/debate.
Drew
Forum MVP
This, in a nutshell, is my problem with the "not all men" argument.
Yes, it is literally true. Not all men are predators who are trying to pressure their way into your pants, by force if necessary.
But, SOME are, and there's no simple way to tell them apart at a glance. And since this isn't a court of law, there's no need to assume innocence until guilt is proven. It's like the bowl of skittles metaphor the right likes to use about immigration from terrorist-dominated areas, without the added caveat that every skittle you take is a life probably saved. If you have a big bowl of skittles, and some of them are poisonous, but not all of them are, are you going to sit there taking every skittle that comes your way? Of course not, not unless you suddenly have a damned good reason to bear that sort of risk.
The irony is "not all men" is a GREAT argument why men ALSO pay the price for a lot of this toxic masculinity bullshit, and they should be pissed about it for the exact opposite reasons they are.
soliloquy
Well-Known Member
Patriarchy was designed to help men.
It gives power to the 'one-man-army'. Little point in relying on others, as others will screw it up, so best thing to do is do it on your own. Be the bread-winner; be the 'man' who 'wears the pants'; be the "dominant"; be the "alpha" etc etc etc....
irony is that the one-man-army thing is exhausting and lonely. Whatever seduction that idea brings can easily be taken away when you realize a village can do a FAR better job than a one man show.
supporting a system where BOTH SIDES are equal, it greatly benefits that dynamic; plus any other dynamics that are impacted with that.
TedEH
Cromulent
I'm one of those people who tends to read charisma in a bad way at times.Hahahah I learned in my teen years that for every 5 people that view my personality as charismatic, there’s at least 1 who thinks I’m an over the top fuckhead and I became quite accepting of that “Ew” response in high school.
I used to butt heads with a guy I knew at work a while back because the guy was charismatic to a fault. I try to frame it as not having any malice in it, but he spoke with such confidence that people would immediately take his word at face value, even when he was very incorrect. I typically did the opposite - where I would always avoid absolutes, and avoid calling people "wrong" outright, so if it was my "maybe" vs his "definitely", he would win out every time, and it drove me nuts. But he's the kind of guy who can make up fancy titles for himself, and lead teams, and get promoted, etc., and I'm the kind of person who just completes my tasks and goes home. It's not "fair" necessarily, but I'm still very wary of people who show what feels like unearned levels of confidence and never get questioned.
The worst instance was when he was first hired - directly above me, taking over one of my projects. He opted to throw out the technology we were using because it was "for dinosaurs", and we had to replace the entire stack behind our web-based product, being put together by a team of people who are really not web people to begin with. It was my "maybe we shouldn't throw out the tools we're comfortable with" vs. "we definitely need to re-build everything on NodeJS and use this hip new database". I pushed back, but got in trouble for it. Fast forward a year or so, he was promoted to leading a bigger team, and I was left with supporting the old product - surprise surprise, the database that I warned people we didn't understand was configured incorrectly, and the client lost all of their records.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Super tangential, but whatever.
As far as bears or whatever, the whole scenario feels like it's conjured to stir people up. It's an interesting point that a lot of women pick the bear, and I get why, but I don't think it's useful to dwell on a deliberately inflammatory hypothetical. There's 101 ways to discuss women's experience around strange men, without framing it around "if you don't get it, then YOU'RE the problem". Sure, the people it's meant to gotcha are getting gotcha'd, and maybe some people feel some fleeting sense of good about that, but is anyone's behaviour going to change as a result? I don't think so.
