nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Why are men dropping out of society? - mod note in 1st post

maregal

I'd like this thread to discuss the reasons why men are dropping out of society and foregoing women rather than discuss whether it's a good or bad thing. Last time a poster espoused the merits of the MGTOW movement the angry feminists brigaded the forum and forced the thread closure. It's amusing how offended they get as a group when one single man declares he's not interested in them.

To keep the OP brief I'll list off some oft-suggested reasons and hopefully we can expand on them in the discussion.

Marriage is seen as a temporary arrangement these days rather than permanent. Men always lose out in the divorce. Look what the alimony payments did to Robin Williams.

A good job is hard to find. Everything is an internship, short contract or a dead end McJob. Employment quotas favour women and minorities.

Pornography making men docile?

Education system favours the female brain. Universities are packed with more females than males. SJW and politically correct dogma is shoved down your throat at these institutions.

Men being demonized. Grown man holding hands with his child in the public park = pedophile. Have consensual sex with a girl but she changes her mind the next day = rapist. Men are constantly fighting back their natural urge to rape and commit violence apparently.

I've a few more hypotheses but that should be enough to get the ball rolling.

Mod note:

To lessen the impact of troublesome rereg posters, we ask posters with fewer than 10 posts or who have been registered for fewer than 3 days not to post in this thread.

It is likely that newly registered users who post in contravention of the above request will be a troll or a rereg, who will be removed along with their posts and replies to them.

We ask other users to report any issues which may arise in this regard.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

GingerLily

midnight city wrote: »

You still had to do 3 languages even though you had an obvious flair for more logical/scientific subjects. Doing 4 or 5 leaving cert subjects would have suited you well.

Completely agree, while I was at a disadvantage under the current system I'd still prefer the education system to try maximise what we as a society deem to be essential learning, and that delivered in a way that suits both genders, rather than looking at what gender will benefit the most.

midnight city

silverharp wrote: »

ideally you should have the choice, the only 2 subject that one should have to do in our system is English and Maths the rest then you should be able to ferret out yourself.
the other skew possibly is giving all subjects equal points leaving aside maths. A subject like Bis Org anyone can do, you might do better if you are more interested , but its unlikely you would read a chapter several times and say afterwards "I don't get it" whereas some people would fail an old style physics paper (pre dumbed down ) if you gave them 5 years to learn it

There would be outrage if higher points were suggested for physics and chemistry.

El_Duderino 09

psinno wrote:

If they had a single set of physical requirements and only let men apply would that be acceptable to you?

Only let one gender apply? No I wouldn't be happy with that. I've no idea why you're asking me that. Is there a point coming?

midnight city

GingerLily wrote: »

Completely agree, while I was at a disadvantage under the current system I'd still prefer the education system to try maximise what we as a society deem to be essential learning, and that delivered in a way that suits both genders, rather than looking at what gender will benefit the most.

It won't be easy to solve. But at present there is no effort to even understand it. Girls are doing better and the reaction is celebration from some quarters and indifference from others. I have a son at school and doing well but it irritates me to see celebration when girls out do boys again. With nobody in authority saying wait a minute why is this happening and is there anything can be done to help.

grumpynerd

midnight city wrote: »

It won't be easy to solve. But at present there is no effort to even understand it. Girls are doing better and the reaction is celebration from some quarters and indifference from others. I have a son at school and doing well but it irritates me to see celebration when girls out do boys again. With nobody in authority saying wait a minute why is this happening and is there anything can be done to help.

all of civilisation is being oriented at facilitating females on every level...the fact that males are still in the running in any area at all is astonishing.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Only let one gender apply? No I wouldn't be happy with that. I've no idea why you're asking me that. Is there a point coming?

I think he meant it that a standard based on male fitness where it wouldn't be possible for women to reasonably be expected to pass but from a hiring perspective would make their job easier.

Question back to you, what is in this for the male feminist? that women will look after men? that more men will be competed out of the system thus allowing the male feminist to shine? or just a personal thing that you don't like the idea of having gender roles imposed on you?

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote:

The same way they are trying to get girls into the STEM fields. By talking to the students about the courses and showing that is a valid profession for males too.

That's sensible. My secondary school had mostly make teachers and we were all given careers guidance about teaching. My experience might not be the norm though, i don't know.

Rory28 wrote:

The doctor issue is a legitimate concern. We can't just ignore the fact that boys are not getting the points required to even apply for the course. Same with law.

Again, if boys don't achieve the grades we need to find the problems and fix them. But if girls do t make the grade for firefighter or police, we should just accept the disparity?

Rory28 wrote:

You keep asking these questions like the person you put them too has all the answers. Have you any thoughts or just more questions?

It's an issue that some of the fellas here are passionate about so I thought it would be a good idea to find out what they think about the issue. It's not an issue I'm big into so it makes more sense to ask questions than anything else.

Besides that you can find out if someone has a conclusion based on reason or bias by asking questions. If the conclusion is based on solid reasons, it's easy to answer questions honestly. Conclusions based on bias or cognitive dissonance usually result in people refusing to engage switch the questions. Very informative either way.

midnight city wrote:

I would be happy to see pretty much all professions mixed well. Provided people were capable of doing the job properly. I don't want to see entrance criteria dumbed down though.

Sure, no complaint there. Entrance criteria need to be sufficient to exclude those who can't do the job. The rest is about getting the right mix of people and skills

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Also what you would expect given generations of kids fed baloney like "male brain good at the maths subjects , the female brain good at the language stuff"

The actual differences between the brains are minute. Socialisation is a very different story. If you give a fella sports equipment and give a girl dolls to play with, would you be surprised to find that the fella has better motor coordination and spatial awareness?

Rory28

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Again, if boys don't achieve the grades we need to find the problems and fix them. But if girls do t make the grade for firefighter or police, we should just accept the disparity?

Its already been pointed out the curriculum is favoured towards women. The mandatory 3 languages is ridiculous but counts for 300 points out of 600.

GingerLily

midnight city wrote: »

It won't be easy to solve. But at present there is no effort to even understand it. Girls are doing better and the reaction is celebration from some quarters and indifference from others. I have a son at school and doing well but it irritates me to see celebration when girls out do boys again. With nobody in authority saying wait a minute why is this happening and is there anything can be done to help.

I think it's because girls were traditionally the underdog when it comes to education and career opportunities. An overreaction perhaps to how badly society has treated them in the past.

Ardillaun

Regarding declining US marriage rates, the female role is underappreciated IMO. Many young men are perceived, consciously or otherwise, as 'not worth' marrying because they don't have stable employment. The ability of a man to provide has always been a major factor in determining fitness for marriage and is probably hard-wired into the female psyche. Jane Austen tackled this issue with humour but there's a dark side to it, as with most things human. Unemployed men are more likely to get divorced as well:

http://time.com/4425061/unemployment-divorce-men-women/

pumpkin4life

silverharp wrote: »

I think he meant it that a standard based on male fitness where it wouldn't be possible for women to reasonably be expected to pass but from a hiring perspective would make their job easier.

Question back to you, what is in this for the male feminist? that women will look after men? that more men will be competed out of the system thus allowing the male feminist to shine? or just a personal thing that you don't like the idea of having gender roles imposed on you?

Virtue signalling. Looking like a good person than actually being a good person.

Inability to compete with other men/has to resort to under the table tactics to win.

Wanting to get their hole.

Wanting an excuse to satiate their ego; fùck society and all of its social constructs! It's them thats the problem, not me!

Those be the main ones.

midnight city

GingerLily wrote: »

I think it's because girls were traditionally the underdog when it comes to education and career opportunities. An overreaction perhaps to how badly society has treated them in the past.

I agree. On top of that a whole industry have evolved out of the feminist movement. With well paid jobs lecturing on women's studies, media roles advocating for women's issues (and misandry for entertainment..), places on various boards, women's council etc. They all have a vested interest in keeping up the idea that women are downtrodden and need help. Nothing like that exists for men. Even trying to set up groups advocating for men and boys is difficult.

pumpkin4life

Ardillaun wrote: »

Regarding declining US marriage rates, the female role is underappreciated IMO. Many young men are not worth marrying because they don't have stable employment. The ability of a man to provide has always been a major factor in determining fitness for marriage and is probably hard-wired into the female psyche. Unemployed men are more likely to get divorced as well:

http://time.com/4425061/unemployment-divorce-men-women/

On the flipside of that you have more fat women and more women than ever working. Those would also contribute to declining US marriage rates.

Colser

grumpynerd wrote:

all of civilisation is being oriented at facilitating females on every level...the fact that males are still in the running in any area at all is astonishing.

This has to be a joke..what are you actually basing that opinion on (if you're serious)?

intheclouds

pumpkin4life wrote: »

On the flipside of that you have more fat women and more women than ever working. Those would also contribute to declining US marriage rates.

What???

People are fatter. There are more fat people!

midnight city

Ardillaun wrote: »

Unemployed men are more likely to get divorced as well:

More likely to be divorced from..

pumpkin4life

intheclouds wrote: »

What???

People are fatter. There are more fat people!

The vast majority of men don't find fat women attractive.

More fat women, less skinny women. More men competing for a shrinking percentage of women.

Marriages decline as a result.

GingerLily

midnight city wrote: »

I agree. On top of that a whole industry have evolved out of the feminist movement. With well paid jobs lecturing on women's studies, media roles advocating for women's issues (and misandry for entertainment..), places on various boards, women's council etc. They all have a vested interest in keeping up the idea that women are downtrodden and need help. Nothing like that exists for men. Even trying to set up groups advocating for men and boys is difficult.

While I think we need a step back from gender based battlefields, there are a lot of issues for men in modern society that need to be addressed and someone needs to do that.

kunst nugget

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The vast majority of men don't find fat women attractive.

More fat women, less skinny women. More men competing for a shrinking percentage of women.

Marriages decline as a result.

Jesus… words fail me.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

I think he meant it that a standard based on male fitness where it wouldn't be possible for women to reasonably be expected to pass but from a hiring perspective would make their job easier.

If the standard required to do the job us out if the reach of most women, then fine. If it's lighter than. It needs to be which excludes people unnecessarily, hard a silly standard and should be changed.

silverharp wrote:

Question back to you, what is in this for the male feminist? that women will look after men? that more men will be competed out of the system thus allowing the male feminist to shine? or just a personal thing that you don't like the idea of having gender roles imposed on you?

Fair question but there's nothing 'in it' for me specifically beyond any other aspect of equality. Surely you don't need to be the main beneficiary of each and every opinion you hold. I shudder to think what dome of the fellas here think of a male feminist. Suffice to say it's probably not as scarry as they think.

'Design a society where you don't know what position you'll hold' or however the saying goes.

Just a note, I haven't spoken against finding out why fellas aren't performing as well as girls in school.

El_Duderino 09

Rory28 wrote:

Its already been pointed out the curriculum is favoured towards women. The mandatory 3 languages is ridiculous but counts for 300 points out of 600.

In a case of fellas underperforming it's about finding the problem and fixing it (the problen you identified id the curriculum). When it's women underperforming there are no shortage of resons why there is no need to delve into it to find the problems at all. That's informative, don't you think?

intheclouds

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The vast majority of men don't find fat women attractive.

More fat women, less skinny women. More men competing for a shrinking percentage of women.

Marriages decline as a result.

LOL - this is one of the funniest comments Ive read on this website in a long time.

I do wonder about some posters here.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you give a fella sports equipment and give a girl dolls to play with, would you be surprised to find that the fella has better motor coordination and spatial awareness?

When I was younger, 30 years ago, I assumed all of this was going away. My brother did Engineering, and there were 6 girls in a class of 250. I did it 6 years later at the same school, and there were 30 girls in the class.

I assumed that soon the classes would be 50-50, but in fact progress stalled, and many young lads starting tech jobs today are sexist pigs that I wouldn't have given the time of day to in Eng. classes 30 years ago, total Neanderthals.

Progress is apparently not inevitable. Just look at the aisles in Smyths.

py2006

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

many young lads starting tech jobs today are sexist pigs that I wouldn't have given the time of day to in Eng. classes 30 years ago, total Neanderthals.

Wait, what? Guys starting out their careers in tech jobs are sexist pigs?

Colser

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Progress is apparently not inevitable. Just look at the aisles in Smyths.

What's progress in this scenario...do you want the boys to go to the girly aisles or do you want a 50/50split or what?Do you agree that there are differences between us that are just nature and shouldn't be forced to be anything else?

El_Duderino 09

pumpkin4life wrote:

Virtue signalling. Looking like a good person than actually being a good person.

On an anonymous internet discussion forum. Wheels the payoff in that?

pumpkin4life wrote:

Inability to compete with other men/has to resort to under the table tactics to win.

Ha! It's the MGTOW fellas who can't compete!

pumpkin4life wrote:

Wanting to get their hole.

You think I want to impress anonymous strangers on the internet to get my hole? I don't think you've thought this through.

pumpkin4life wrote:

fÃ¹ck society and all of its social constructs! It's them thats the problem, not me!

This is literally the whole point of MGTOW

pumpkin4life wrote:

Those be the main ones.

They were v good alright.

Zubeneschamali

py2006 wrote: »

Wait, what? Guys starting out their careers in tech jobs are sexist pigs?

Yes, some of them.

Attitudes I would have been saddened by 30 years ago, and young lads are trotting them out today. Women can't handle coding jobs, wow your code is "pretty" ha ha!

Until they meet some of the women on the team and get walked on, technically.

Ignorant gits, basically, and they've managed to keep that male chauvinist attitude clear through college.

Olishi4

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/feeder-schools-social-class-still-drives-school-league-tables-1.2451880

"Gaelscoileanna and fee-paying schools dominate school rankings with the highest number of students graduating to third-level education, Irish Times figures published today show."

"Social class, however, remains a major factor in the performance of schools, especially in the Dublin area. Latest figures show students in more affluent areas in the capital are progressing to college at a rate of up to four time those in disadvantaged areas.

The social class divide is most obvious in the feeder school list for high points courses in universities and other third-level institutions."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/question-of-the-week-are-boys-doing-better-than-girls-in-school-1.2455110

"One unexpected result was that boys’ schools dominated the top performers.
In the top 50 schools, for example, boys’ schools accounted for 21 of the places compared to 13 for girls’ schools. The remaining 16 were mixed or co-educational schools.
The school which topped the overall rankings was Coláiste Eoin, an all-boys gaelscoil in Stillorgan, Co Dublin.

Similarly, boys’ schools, mostly fee-paying, dominated the top spots for schools sending students to high-points courses. These include courses offered in universities, the Dublin Institute of Technology, teacher training colleges and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland"

I don't think this necessarily means that boys schools or gaelscoil are better but that the school system and social class are the main factors attributed to boys and girls in their schooling, encouragement and progression.

Zubeneschamali

Colser wrote: »

Do you agree that there are differences between us that are just nature

Yes, I have goolies and they don't.

That does not mean we need a pink aisle and a blue aisle in Smyths, with dolls and toy cookers and bangles in the pink aisle and soldiers and microscopes in the blue one.

This is the very essence of our culture reinforcing sexist views.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

If the standard required to do the job us out if the reach of most women, then fine. If it's lighter than. It needs to be which excludes people unnecessarily, hard a silly standard and should be changed.

If the standards are higher than they need to be which excludes...