Anti-male movement

marcus001 · 07-09-2017 5:39pm

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Just because there are biological inputs and constraints does not mean that social constructs don't exist. They're not mutually exclusive and yet your arguing that I'm making up social constructs. The biological input has created most of the social constructs that exist, the idea the men provide for their families exists because at our foundation as a race that was the fact. Men hunt women gather, and rear children. Those biological imperatives dictated how society functioned as we evolved. We have now evolved past needing to hunt wild animals and forage for berries so the biological imperative for men to go and hunt no longer exists, however for some the social construct which was built around it still does, thereby leaving men who feel they can't provide for their families to feel they have nothing to offer. We're also living on an over populated planet so the biological imperative to reproduce no longer exists, however the social construct that when you're grown up you have a family still exists leaving men and women who can't reproduce for whatever reason feeling like less of a man/woman

I imagine that might be the case in your social circle, as you seem so adamant it's the truth. But CSO figures show people are marrying later and later with every census, the average age of grooms in 2015 was 35.3 and brides was 33.2. It's not a case of easier or harder to live with, people meet and pair off when they're ready and want to. That's all!

I could easily have married anyone I dated in my 20's but my life would not necessarily be better for it, they could still have turned out a nightmare, if anything it's a safer bet to marry older as people change less as they get older so they're likely to be more stable. People who marry young often wake up 10/15 years down the line and find that the person beside them is not the person they married (and not in a kinky way) because people change so much from their 20's to their 30's

Just because a biological imperative is no longer based on a rational need it doesn't suddenly become a social construct. It's still a biological imperative to survive and pass on one's genes regardless of its necessity for the survival of the species.

silverharp · 07-09-2017 5:57pm

marcus001 wrote: »

Just because a biological imperative is no longer based on a rational need it doesn't suddenly become a social construct. It's still a biological imperative to survive and pass on one's genes regardless of its necessity for the survival of the species.

how do you think that plays out between man and women? do men have a biological imperative to pass on genes or simply to have sex?

marcus001 · 07-09-2017 8:49pm

silverharp wrote: »

how do you think that plays out between man and women? do men have a biological imperative to pass on genes or simply to have sex?

Women being attracted to successful men is not a social construct it's a biological instinct. Money as a marker of success is a social construct.

iptba · 07-09-2017 8:55pm

marcus001 wrote: »

Women being attracted to successful men is not a social construct it's a biological instinct. Money as a marker of success is a social construct.

Though I think it is also being attracted to people with resources rather than simply just those who are successful.

marcus001 · 07-09-2017 9:19pm

iptba wrote: »

Though I think it is also being attracted to people with resources rather than simply just those who are successful.

I think having resources is less important than having the ability to accumulate resources (and also having those resources). A businessman who earns a few hundred thousand a year is probably more attractive than someone who won the lotto, all else being equal.

iptba · 07-09-2017 9:28pm

marcus001 wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Though I think it is also being attracted to people with resources rather than simply just those who are successful.

I think having resources is less important than having the ability to accumulate resources (and also having those resources). A businessman who earns a few hundred thousand a year is probably more attractive than someone who won the lotto, all else being equal.

Yes but similarly two people could be equally successful at different things, but one would bring in more resources than the other and all things being equal I think the person who brings in more resources is more attractive than a person who is successful but their success brings in fewer resources.

iptba · 07-09-2017 10:44pm

marcus001 wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Yes but similarly two people could be equally successful at different things, but one would bring in more resources than the other and all things being equal I think the person who brings in more resources is more attractive than a person who is successful but their success brings in fewer resources.

Is a hedge fund manager who makes 100 million a year more attractive than a musician who makes only 5 million a year? I'm splitting hairs here, I'd say at that point you're getting into personal preferences.

Who says anything about earning millions.
I didn't:

iptba wrote:

Yes but similarly two people could be equally successful at different things, but one would bring in more resources than the other and all things being equal I think the person who brings in more resources is more attractive than a person who is successful but their success brings in fewer resources.

You simply mention success and were making a distinction with money:

marcus001 wrote:

Women being attracted to successful men is not a social construct it's a biological instinct. Money as a marker of success is a social construct.

A national champion and professional badminton player might not be as attractive as a rugby or soccer player, for example, who plays for Ireland.
Or indeed, an all-star GAA player might not be as attractive as a rugby or soccer player, for example, who plays for Ireland.

Or somebody might be relatively successful in the public sector (say) but because they earn less, might not be as attractive as somebody equally as successful in the private sector.

My basic point is that both success and the resources a person is bringing in could be related to attractiveness rather than simply success alone.

Wibbs · 07-09-2017 10:57pm

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Can you classify a 5 for me? or at least point me to where I can find the objective scale of attractiveness?
It is a facet of biology that both sexes, seek out the most successful genetic mate for reproductive purposes, as they want to ensure the survival of their progeny.

Oh true, however - and I don't like the term or connotations of same - there are observable "leagues" when it comes to attractiveness. At the everyday disconnected level of "sex symbols" we place certain individuals of both sexes to the top of this scale.

And we've done so since recorded history, was well, recorded. The Greeks had a scale of beauty and were obsessed with it and usually conflated beauty with virtue. For men anyway. For women it was seen as both virtuous and dangerous. They even had beauty contests. Likely the first reference to eating disorders in women to match up to this standard was noted by Greek doctors. And young Greek men spent hours in their version of gyms honing their bodies. The word itself comes from the Greek. Though from a different angle that may not be obvious. Gymnous(sp?

) means naked in Greek. Cos they did all their exercises in the nip. As you do. Better to show off one's muscles and small willy(yep they considered big willies a bit ugh and worthy of derision). Women usually had their boobs out in the air and wide hips were a thing. Those Instagram lassies with the squat built Baby's got back poses would have gone down a treat back then. As would the jacked gym guys.

And even though cultural fashions in what is considered attractive can vary over time, there are some variables that actually aren't so variable. In men strength, social power(money, fame, "charisma") was valued and the general inverted V shape of the torso. In women signifiers of youth like smooth skin, lustrous hair, "pertness" and the hip/waist ratio are near constants. And we still see this today cross culturally. Hip/waist ratio in women? The Venus de Milo, Betty Grable, Kate Moss, Ingres and Rubens' nudes, Twiggy and even the to our eyes near grossly obese Palaeolithic Venus sculptures all share the same ratio.

What is interesting to me is how different the size of women varies compared to women over time. In Europe anyway. The men's "ideal" is far more a constant. A man who won a 3000 year old Greek beauty contest would still be seen as a bit of a ride and would be in with a decent chance at a beauty/bodybuilding contest today(if one exists minus steroids). As would his social power. And in Roman times. And in the Medieval. And in the Renaissance and so on. Whereas though the hip/waist ratio stays stable as a "thing" in women throughout time, their overall size doesn't. That's far more variable depending on time and culture. Hell, even within a period as short as the 20th century it varied. A lot. A winner of Ms World from say 1960 wouldn't get beyond the local tryouts in 2017. She'd be seen as too "heavy" and she wouldn't be heavy enough for a Ms World of 1717.

Annnnyway. I digress as I am wont to do

and the subject is a fascinating one for me, but the point is that there has always existed a cultural notion of beauty and ugliness, or more, a cultural notion of attractiveness with a sliding scale between the two. For both sexes. And individuals and their peers and wider culture would have been consciously or subconsciously broadly aware of where they lay on that scale. Just like we are today.

Now we are wont to apply a form of cognitive dissonance to such things. We all like to think of some "magical" component to what we see as attraction and love. Of course we do. It's when we are potentially at our most vulnerable, so we seek to see it as somehow ephemeral, un measurable. Even though it is more the latter, than former.

TL;DR? "leagues" as far as sexual/romantic attraction do exist and we have a generally good idea of where we fall on that scale and like tends to attract like. In the average/majority.

Wibbs · 07-09-2017 11:01pm

iptba wrote: »

A national champion and professional badminton player might not be as attractive as a rugby or soccer player, for example, who plays for Ireland.
Or indeed, an all-star GAA player might not be as attractive as a rugby or soccer player, for example, who plays for Ireland.

True, but all things being equal they're going to be more attractive than a guy entering data into a spreadsheet. Even if physically they would be similar.

marcus001 · 08-09-2017 8:39pm

Anyway lads, what I said before about going for women in your league was meant to be tongue in cheek, but it also has a grain of truth in it. In my experience when you meet a woman of the same level of attractiveness there's a lot less effort involved and they tend also to be more forward and approachable, presumably because they realise you're likely to reciprocate. Women who are less attractive tend to be less forward, presumably for fear of rejection.

py2006 · 09-09-2017 6:40am

What has all this got to do with the subject matter of the thread?

MickDoyle1979 · 09-09-2017 10:26am

py2006 wrote: »

What has all this got to do with the subject matter of the thread?

SJWs and feminists who attack masculinity are attacking humanity itself.

We know women are attracted by masculine power - physical strength, sporting prowess intellectual achievement, dominance over other males and high status.

We know men who are physically ugly weak slow witted poor and low in the pecking order are not attractive to beautiful educated successful women.

We know that high status men choose high status women and ugly unhappy men and women settle for each other or die alone.

The lowest in the pecking order are ugly fat unhappy women who make up the majority of feminist groups and hate men

El_Duderino 09 · 09-09-2017 11:12am

py2006 wrote: »

What has all this got to do with the subject matter of the thread?

It began with discussing the paradigm of women marrying up in wealth and status and men marrying down I order to keep a woman interested.

Then women joined in eduction and the workforce which messed with the programme. The assertion is that men need to be the breadwinner to be happy and keep a woman attracted to him and women need the man to be the breadwinner to stay attracted to him other wise they end up doing 'starfish, chore sex' as one pessimistic poster put it.

The discussion also went into how much of the paradigm mentioned above is true and how much is social/cultural and how much is biologically necessary and can't be changed through culturally adapting to the reality.

It was a good chat for the most part.

MickDoyle1979 · 09-09-2017 2:55pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It began with discussing the paradigm of women marrying up in wealth and status and men marrying down I order to keep a woman interested.

Then women joined in eduction and the workforce which messed with the programme. The assertion is that men need to be the breadwinner to be happy and keep a woman attracted to him and women need the man to be the breadwinner to stay attracted to him other wise they end up doing 'starfish, chore sex' as one pessimistic poster put it.

The discussion also went into how much of the paradigm mentioned above is true and how much is social/cultural and how much is biologically necessary and can't be changed through culturally adapting to the reality.

It was a good chat for the most part.

Modern humans are not hunters and gatherers any more and both sexes use substitutes like sport and shopping because they are still hardwired for the Serengeti not the captive environment of civilized urban life. The gender roles emerged then.

Christopher Hitchens said the major religions preach that mankind was born sick but is commanded to be well. They are sado masochistic.

Scientific study of male and female psychology sexual behaviour and physical make up demonstrates we cannot help but be how we are. Yet feminists do precisely the same as religious ideologues

Marxists tried to make war on class and Nazis made war on race and Islamists make war on everything unIslamic andthis totalitarianism is making war on gender and particular masculinity that is innate

El_Duderino 09 · 09-09-2017 4:05pm

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It began with discussing the paradigm of women marrying up in wealth and status and men marrying down I order to keep a woman interested.

Then women joined in eduction and the workforce which messed with the programme. The assertion is that men need to be the breadwinner to be happy and keep a woman attracted to him and women need the man to be the breadwinner to stay attracted to him other wise they end up doing 'starfish, chore sex' as one pessimistic poster put it.

The discussion also went into how much of the paradigm mentioned above is true and how much is social/cultural and how much is biologically necessary and can't be changed through culturally adapting to the reality.

It was a good chat for the most part.

Modern humans are not hunters and gatherers any more and both sexes use substitutes like sport and shopping because they are still hardwired for the Serengeti not the captive environment of civilized urban life. The gender roles emerged then.

Christopher Hitchens said the major religions preach that mankind was born sick but is commanded to be well. They are sado masochistic.

Scientific study of male and female psychology sexual behaviour and physical make up demonstrates we cannot help but be how we are. Yet feminists do precisely the same as religious ideologues

Marxists tried to make war on class and Nazis made war on race and Islamists make war on everything unIslamic andthis totalitarianism is making war on gender and particular masculinity that is innate

Jaysus you can take anything you like from that. It might be more productive if you say what you think and give reasons for it rather than make a load of assertions for it

Wibbs · 09-09-2017 4:51pm

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Modern humans are not hunters and gatherers any more and both sexes use substitutes like sport and shopping because they are still hardwired for the Serengeti not the captive environment of civilized urban life. The gender roles emerged then.

That's an extremely simplistic way to look at it and more than a little inaccurate. All too common with some sections within the creed of evolutionary biology. And it is a creed like the rest and like the rest assumes their approach is about the only one. A problem with going in one direction(and worse when it becomes a political football) is that if all you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail. We also see this in the "oh it's all cultural forces at work/gender doesn't exist/intrinsic inequalities don't exist etc".

You said it yourself modern humans aren't hunter gatherers anymore. Even modern hunter gatherer societies a) don't have as many cultural overlaps as we might expect and b) they too have evolved over time on the genetic level. Hell, some of them are only hunter gatherers relatively recently. EG many of the Amazonian Indian tribes were actually farmers living in various local civilisations and cultures. They went back to that lifestyle when said civilisations went tits up.

Anyway, if you look at modern peoples at the genetic level we find that there have been more genetic adaptations to their environment over the last 30,000years than in the preceding 100,000. Many are dietary related, but many also seem to be related to social pressures. Pressures that came to bear after our numbers reached a certain point and populations clustered together. Immune changes one example, but others included changes in reproductive stuff like sperm production.

So in short equating us and our reproductive tactics with people with very different environmental pressures and very different environments is very close to bro science. Not unlike the so called "Palaeolithic diet" fad(the vast majority of foodstuffs on it didn't and don't exist in the wild in any period).

Christopher Hitchens said the major religions preach that mankind was born sick but is commanded to be well. They are sado masochistic.

They can be viewed that way, though they can also be viewed in the sense that mankind has the capacity to always improve and be better. That in this quest we can even become almost godlike. Depends on one's viewpoint.

Scientific study of male and female psychology sexual behaviour and physical make up demonstrates we cannot help but be how we are.

Again an example of if all you have is a hammer. Again the opposing side takes the extreme and believes that we can exist beyond our physical. There is such a thing as a middle ground. It's why I always disliked the hard nature/nurture debate and those who espouse it. It's as plain as the nose on one's face that it's a little from column A and a little from column B. Why do you think so much of the social sciences are soft sciences that are in such opposition on a matter so often? When both sides can think themselves proven right by research and science, it's neither good research or science and again the middle path is the way.

In short; we have latent differences between genders based on biology, but cultural pressures can increase or decrease this differences.

Yet feminists do precisely the same as religious ideologues

I'd largely agree, however if one's own position is hard locked in and sees equally locked in opposites on all sides then one is also guilty of being an ideologue.

Marxists tried to make war on class and Nazis made war on race and Islamists make war on everything unIslamic andthis totalitarianism is making war on gender and particular masculinity that is innate

OK, but which masculinity is innate? The foppish effete 17th century kind, with powder and wigs? The hunter gatherer(them again) cultures where the men wear the makeup and fashion(some will call off battles because the rain will ruin their hairstyles) and practice pederastry type? On that note the Ancient Greek masculinity? Or the Roman? It's a very broad church indeed. I am not saying that there exists some general traits of masculinity that tend to be seen cross cultural and across time, but there's quite the bit of scope where the culture informs the idea of masculinity itself.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-09-2017 7:03pm

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Modern humans are not hunters and gatherers any more and both sexes use substitutes like sport and shopping because they are still hardwired for the Serengeti not the captive environment of civilized urban life. The gender roles emerged then.

I don't know about you but I don't live on the Serengeti. So in the same sense that you revere the people who adapted to live on the Serengeti, the modern environment requires adaptions.
Why are the Serengeti adaptions to be held above any other adaptions?

Holding your hands up and saying 'help, I'm incapable of adapting to my environment' should be simple to interpret in your Serengeti example. Those who can't adapt to their environment .... you know....

johnnyskeleton · 12-09-2017 6:55pm

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/12/stalking-men-rejection-romantic-sitcoms-films-creepy-women-boundaries?CMP=fb_gu

Just imagine the outrage if someone wrote a similar article, calling clingey rejected women creepy or stalkers.

Every day theres a new thing on facebook like the above where they take one ordinary story, analyse it through the lens of men are evil, then extrapolate that to society teaches men to be creepy and evil.

I dont feel safe calling these things out on facebook because I will just get angry responses from my female friends.

So to be clear, the article isnt the problem so much as the fact that there is a constant and unchecked barrage of articles like that every day.

mzungu · 12-09-2017 8:38pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/12/stalking-men-rejection-romantic-sitcoms-films-creepy-women-boundaries?CMP=fb_gu

Just imagine the outrage if someone wrote a similar article, calling clingey rejected women creepy or stalkers.

Every day theres a new thing on facebook like the above where they take one ordinary story, analyse it through the lens of men are evil, then extrapolate that to society teaches men to be creepy and evil.

I dont feel safe calling these things out on facebook because I will just get angry responses from my female friends.

So to be clear, the article isnt the problem so much as the fact that there is a constant and unchecked barrage of articles like that every day.

TBH I kind of agree with him on the piano man thing. She dumped him, so going on a public mission to try win her back was a bit cringey at best, and if I am being honest, a bit malevolent at worst. It is kind of like asking somebody to marry you in public to make sure they say "yes" so as to avoid a scene. It is more or less trying to shame them into accepting.

The rest of the article does take liberties with linking rom-coms to stalking and loses the plot entirely. I kind of got the feeling reading it that he didn't even believe what he was saying. If he had just kept to the piano man thing, he would have had a valid point.

johnnyskeleton · 12-09-2017 9:21pm

mzungu wrote: »

TBH I kind of agree with him on the piano man thing. She dumped him, so going on a public mission to try win her back was a bit cringey at best, and if I am being honest, a bit malevolent at worst. It is kind of like asking somebody to marry you in public to make sure they say "yes" so as to avoid a scene. It is more or less trying to shame them into accepting.

Ok, even if we accept that it is a cringeworthy move on his part, he was just one guy doing something stupid to try to impress his ex. This wouldnt be news or the subject of analysis if it was a story about a broken hearted woman acting foolish.

tritium · 12-09-2017 9:24pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/12/stalking-men-rejection-romantic-sitcoms-films-creepy-women-boundaries?CMP=fb_gu

Just imagine the outrage if someone wrote a similar article, calling clingey rejected women creepy or stalkers.

Every day theres a new thing on facebook like the above where they take one ordinary story, analyse it through the lens of men are evil, then extrapolate that to society teaches men to be creepy and evil.

I dont feel safe calling these things out on facebook because I will just get angry responses from my female friends.

So to be clear, the article isnt the problem so much as the fact that there is a constant and unchecked barrage of articles like that every day.

The author of that piece is a clown. Somebody should point out to them that

- a sample size of one does not a trend make
- your personal experience is not a scientific study
- using rom coms, the bane of many guys existence, as examples of patriarchy or whatever is reealllly a stretch
-many guys agree with you that the notebook is cack, just for different reasons

Of course it might be pointless trying to discuss with someone who sees possessivness as a trait of only one gender. Strangely that wouldn't tally with my own, admittedly equally non-scientific experience from observing various friends etc

mzungu · 12-09-2017 10:17pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ok, even if we accept that it is a cringeworthy move on his part, he was just one guy doing something stupid to try to impress his ex. This wouldnt be news or the subject of analysis if it was a story about a broken hearted woman acting foolish.

TBH I am not sure, it could go either way. With the way the news is now, I would lean on the side of the media reporting it. Lets say that did happen, if it was a woman playing the piano the media may not go with the "creepy" angle, but I could not see them glorifying it either. What I do know for certain is, she would be lambasted on social media and most definitely among her peers IRL.

In fact, hypothetically speaking, I think a man would have an easier time of it.

What I mean is, the pianoman may get a slagging for it but it will largely end there after the clickbait dries up in two hours time. When it comes to obsessive behaviour (and that is what the piano man case is), men will largely get more of a free pass in that regard. That article says it is down to rom-com conditioning, I disagree with this. I think it is possibly down to the societal expectation that the man will do the chasing at the start of a relationship, so if he does something barmy like play a piano on a street at the end of it, some leeway will be given as it may be seen as part of that chase. However, for the most part, women approaching men is still frowned upon in some circles and does not happen anywhere near as often as the man approaching the woman. Hence, if a woman were to then pine in public after a man, it would definitely break a big taboo, and I could not see there being any plaudits for it. The more I think of it, the more I am sure that a woman would get much worse treatment than the piano man.

With all that said, I don't care if you are a man or a woman, it is silly behaviour and I would have grave reservations about somebody who would do something like that.

backspin. · 12-09-2017 11:27pm

I'd bet he watched this on loop in tears

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS9o1FAszdk

PistolsAtDawn · 13-09-2017 12:15am

silverharp wrote: »

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

Maths isn't a gift, some people are naturally better than others no doubt, but the same applies to learning a language or intrepreting poetry, it is simply a skill that requires a lot of effort to learn. We can do anything we want, whether young/old, black/white, male/female etc... We are bounded by nothing.

Unfortunately most people conform to the norm in their environment and are too scared of failure and/or too lazy to go against the grain and make something of themselves.

It's easier to sit around complaining and blameing than to get off your hole and do something with your life.

IQ means nothing, desire/effort/sacrafice mean everything.

to a point and I wouldn't go around hammering people telling them about their limitations but I doubt Einstein had an IQ of 80 and just batted it out of the park. Some people run on 486x and other run on Pentiums :pac:

I agree with you completely, at the start of my comment I stated "some people are naturally better than others no doubt".
In an attempt to solidify my point though, using your analogy, a person running on a 486x will always become a better version of him/herself if constantly maxing out their CPU as opposed to just ticking over handling the bare minimum of processes. Now they may never reach the computational capacity of a Pentium but since people are not computers the ultimate controllable metric of IQ, in my opinion, would be an individuals ability to increase his/her average happiness over their lifetime.
This could theoretically be determined by summing over an infinite number of spectra, each spectrum relating to a different aspect of said persons life. In reality most of these will normally distributed and herein lies the essence of the problem, most people reside around the mean on each spectra without ever trying to push themselves even 1 standard deviation towards the top. As I said previously it would appear as if they would rather sit around complaining and blaming than put in the work to improve.
Now back to my completely average life :-)

Anti-male movement

Comments