Calhoun wrote: » Is that not what was argued earlier in this thread ? That the actions of these people male or female are what has them single ?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » It might be. The consensus tends to hoop in this thread without any noticeable questioning. As long as the conclusion is that fault lies with women, feminism and the media, the arguments take various forms.
Calhoun wrote: » Yah for sure I think there is an element of blame on both sides it's always easier to blame outwards than reflect inwards. I do however think there is some merit in the effect isms have on people. Does a certain ideological view point close off an ability to compromise.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Well it depends on what the problem is and who needs to be blamed. The most acceptable view on this forum is that the career women are probably feminists who only want to marry up and can't find men who interest them - women/feminists fault. On the other hand is men who can't find a relationship which is because the women dong want them because of the media portrayals of these guys as nerds - media/women/feminists fault. The premises of the argument don't seem to matter in this thread as long as the conclusion is that the blame lies with the media/women/feminists.
Calhoun wrote: » Well I don't think that is the premise overall the discussion was of an article in which a female author was doing exactly as you have said. This is a men's forum sonof course there will be more with a view like you have described. Why are you policing it though ? Don't do the same in the woman's forum?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » but I don't think the pity parade that media/women/feminists are to blame for all the woes every man faces, is helpful.
silverharp wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » but I don't think the pity parade that media/women/feminists are to blame for all the woes every man faces, is helpful. thats your strawman though, nobody has said that.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I'm not policing anything, I haven't asks anyone to do anything. I'm simply pointing out the double standard. I find this forum useful but I don't think the pity parade that media/women/feminists are to blame for all the woes every man faces, is helpful. When it's blatant, it should be challenged. Would you disagree?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Read through the last few pages and see if you can seriously stand by that. It's a ream of lamenting the media and reasons why it's all the women's fault anyway. Not to forget your own comment on post 6407 which suggests that "feminism must have rotted their brains somewhat". Doesn't seem like a straw man if you read back.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » So this stereotype does exist as you outline and use in an example, but the media is wrong if it uses the same stereotype in the same context? If someone is less appealing to the opposite sex, it's hardly up to the opposite sex to change what they find appealing to include the individual in question. Yet that seems to be the implication. If a man is socially inept and can't find a partner, then it's the media's fault or the feminist's fault or the women's fault. Maybe it's just a function of society that some people partner up and others don't. That goes for men and women.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Is that really the case? The poster H3llr4iser mar this exact point 2 posts before yours ; Maybe H3llr4iser is part of the dreaded media. Or else it's not just the media who use this image. Some men can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault. Some women can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault. This notion is more about making the same old point than commenting on anything in reality.
H3llR4iser wrote: » Lastly, let me cover the concept of "creep" - it's a term that boils my p1ss; Actually no - it sublimates it (nerd reference alert!). It's essentially a very offensive term (look past the "undesirable man" meaning, it actually implies "disgusting" and even "revolting" characteristics) that is nonchalantly thrown around, mostly (yet not exclusively) by women, to tar any guy they don't like; And most of the media are indeed culprit for condoning and even spreading the use of it. It's perfectly fine not to like, or even dislike, somebody - but it doesn't give you the right to offend that person.
tritium wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Is that really the case? The poster H3llr4iser mar this exact point 2 posts before yours ; Maybe H3llr4iser is part of the dreaded media. Or else it's not just the media who use this image. Some men can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault. Some women can't get a relationship = women's/feminism/media's fault. This notion is more about making the same old point than commenting on anything in reality. Oddly neither myself or h3llraiser made any link to feminism, yet you made that leap. I suspect your post sayd more about your mindset than anyone elses....
H3llR4iser wrote: » What the media does is take these and make them into stereotypes, affixing more undesirable characteristics to a specific group of people who, on their own, already had way more than enough difficulties in life. Moreover, they actively extend the stereotype by binding it to certain jobs, hobbies and preferences - e.g. computer programmers, Sci-Fi fans, Comic book lovers, "Bronies" and so on. All treated like they're unwashed shut-ins, living in a basement filthy with discarded Doritos bags and half-drank bottles of Mountain Dew. There are such cases, I give you that, but they're not representative of 100% of the sample. It's easy to see how somebody who didn't have any specific opinion nor idea about it, would easily be swayed but such influence - "So you like Star Trek eh? Sorry, I remembered I need to wash my hair straightener tonight, bye!". Most of the times, the person reacting like this has absolutely no idea what the subject actually is; An ex-girlfriend of mine "hated" anything that was "Star-something"...turned out, she had never watched a single episode, movie or whatever of anything related. She picked up her "hate" on nerd types shown in movies and TV series. Is it the only differentiator? By all means NO; For the millionth time, there are undeniably off putting characteristics that apply to a general level - we as humans are intrinsically programmed to respond to certain cues, be it a nicely shaped face, a curvaceous body, muscly arms or a confident attitude, and dislike others. Can these preferences amplified? They can; And by all means, some people are indeed just not meant / made to "pair off", absolutely; We should all understand that, and maybe stop demonizing these individuals for still having sexual and romantic desires despite their difficulties, if what I mean is clear - afterall, we do live in an hypersexualized, hyper-romanticised world.
Pawwed Rig wrote: » I was expecting this guy to get firedhttp://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40859004 but to fire him and then talk about free speech is slightly absurd.
Wibbs wrote: » Well "free speech" is an idea, not a reality. It's a idea with culturally agreed limits. TBH PR I'd have fired him in a heartbeat, not for his opinions but that he was so monumentality bloody stupid and lacking in awareness about how this would have gone over and how it would have affected people in the company in practical terms.
Wibbs wrote: » lacking in awareness about how this would have gone over and how it would have affected people in the company in practical terms.
psinno wrote: » I don't think he lacked awareness about how it would go over since he said people feel the need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility.
who_me wrote: Was reading the cnn.com).
Wibbs wrote: » Which in my mind P would make him an even bigger idiot lacking in basic awareness.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I didn't mean to twist your words and thanks for elaborating on the point. You mention the media effect on your girlfriends attitude to Star Trek. First, it didn't stop her going out with you. I love Star Trek and it never held me back in conversations. If it comes up then you own it like any other quirk of your personality.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Secondly, is it much different to the way shows aimed mostly at men talk about shows aimed mostly at women like Sex and the City? Family Guy did a bit where Brian said "SATC, that's the show about 3hookers and their mom, right?". I'd imagine plenty of men have a negative view on SATC without having seen very much of it. It's a bit precious to get so offended. Do the same posters get that offended by every stereotype used in media? This situation is ripe for the word "triggered".
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » You're right. Your posts were limited to bemoaning the media and didn't mention feminism. My observation isnt limited to your posts
silverharp wrote: » I found the comment about not looking like a Star Trek fan amusing. I guess its normal to have preconceptions of people who watch certain shows but it wouldn't make me think less of someone because they liked a particular show.
Sleepy wrote: » I dunno, I certainly tend to think less of someone if I find out they're a fan of Sex and the City. I've sat through enough episodes (and regretably even the movies) to have a valid opinion on it and it's no more than escapist consumer porn with a side dose of "don't worry, a rich man will come along and fix all of your mistakes for you despite you having no redeeming character traits that would make you worthy of his time and attention". /vomit
