El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Colour me triggered. If there's a problem that can't be solved by telling other people to read Jordan Peterson, then I'm yet to see it!
silverharp wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Colour me triggered. If there's a problem that can't be solved by telling other people to read Jordan Peterson, then I'm yet to see it! yep triggered or give a reasoned argument why that would be awful advice? you wouldnt be suggesting they take up activism or anything?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Peterson is the big book of multiple choice. He has said so much on so many topics, and I’d imagine most people don’t actually follow his logic with all the transcendent substrates and the meaning of reality. Not to mention the fact that you could watch hours and hours of Peterson without getting past his arguments for gowd. So you’d need to choose what parts of Peterson to direct them towards. I think Peterson is already a hit with the incels, But apart from that, grand. Would that be the help you’d suggest for ones with social disabilities or autistic symptoms?
silverharp wrote: » i fully agree, on the one hand dating seems to have gotten a little more skewed than back in the 80's or 90's. On the plus side there is a lot more information and resources about on line. When i was a teenager there were no forums where i could get advice and nobody told you what you should do or how to improve your place in the dating world or to even understand the dynamics of dating. but i can see that some guys fall through the cracks and never see an upside. I would say they should watch a jordon peterson play list and think on it but i dont want to trigger duderino
Deleted User wrote: » Or they've been unlucky in those women they've approached for dating, or dating experiences themselves. It tends to be glossed over just how brutal many young women can be towards men she's not interested in, and a lot of negative behavior towards boys, can simply be to gain points with her group of friends. The general problem with dating is that a huge percentage of responsibility for success is laid at the feet of the male. He does the approach, the initial flirting, and the chasing afterward. Some young women might take control but most don't. It's slightly different as women get older/experienced and have more confidence but even then most women wait for the male to make all the moves, while the woman sits back in judgment of the whole process. I've had horrible experiences in approaching women when I was a teenager and again in my 20s (even thinking back I shudder at the shame and humiliation involved). It's one of the main reasons I don't tend to date western women now. So, no, I'd place a fair amount of responsibility for the way these guys feel... on the women they've known while developing. A little social responsibility for how they treat boys would go a long way. There's very little in the way of positive encouragement for boys to learn dating. Perhaps it's different now, but I suspect it isn't. Either you learn quickly, have a natural talent in the area, or you're "a loser". And from the behavior of young women on TV or seeing my nieces grow into adults, I don't think things have really improved any for boys. I'd throw in something extra. Society tends to judge boys/men for wanting to improve with regards to dating. Either you're naturally good at dating or you're lucky enough to meet someone when you're young. Good for them. But should you turn to others for advice (like speed seduction or PUA or a half dozen other 'disciplines'), then you're somehow faking it all. Part of the reason PUA turned into such a clusterfck of muppets is because of the negative attention it received from day one. You would not believe the amount of criticism I've received for learning NLP, communication styles, voice training, body language lessons, etc all of which to help me with dating. Oh, sure it makes for much better dating and wonderful connections with women... but I learned to do it. So.. it's all somehow suspect. Many of these boys are angry because there is no instruction on how to become good with women, and learning to date from a vulnerable position without help is really frustrating.
silverharp wrote: » El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Peterson is the big book of multiple choice. He has said so much on so many topics, and I’d imagine most people don’t actually follow his logic with all the transcendent substrates and the meaning of reality. Not to mention the fact that you could watch hours and hours of Peterson without getting past his arguments for gowd. So you’d need to choose what parts of Peterson to direct them towards. I think Peterson is already a hit with the incels, But apart from that, grand. Would that be the help you’d suggest for ones with social disabilities or autistic symptoms? im sure somebody could or has put a play list compendium together for young men, it would be an odd criticism to make that someone has multiple intellectual interests. i dont know much about incels to be honest but i would suggest they would be hostile to Peterson because the positions are incompatible. now to the meat of your question, firstly I wouldnt know how to help anyone with autism , secondly is there a link between incels and autism to make it even relevant? Otherwise if someone has a "social disability" that I am assuming has been learned or is based on severe confidence issues etc. then i dont see why they cant turn themselves around enough to be functioning men. Case by case basis, what issues they have or is it more an unearned sense of entitlement were they just need to reframe the situation
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » We'll, to clarify, I think Peterson has so much about so many different topics and some of it is so vague, that you could read almost anything into it. Have you found Peterson's stuff helpful yourself? I head there was a fair string of autism among the INCELs. And I watched a few videos on YouTube and they all mentioned autism or other mental health problems. But I don't think the fact that they have autism should mean we completely dismiss the idea of offering help.
silverharp wrote: » Incels don't get much sympathy on line and are just a useful online political football
Deleted User wrote: » Since few people have patience for those who whine all the time. I sucked at dating and meeting people. No confidence at all. What did I do? I spent 8 months gradually building up my confidence doing small tasks leading up to greater tasks, while recording everything in a journal. That was just for encountering women (and people in general).. not even the actual dating element. Incels do nothing beyond complain about their situation. They find like-minded people and rant about external issues which prevent them from developing themselves. Whenever they talk about their own problems, they pass the responsibility on to others. They've copped out. In many ways, this is why the Internet is so bad an influence. It provides you access to other idiots to justify your existance rather than seeking help. I'd see Autism or any other such disability as being very different.
silverharp wrote: » misery loves company and all that and its one of the unfortunate aspects of the internet that one in a thousand people can have their ideas reinforced which wouldn't have been possible pre internet.One would hope its just a brief phase in their lives and they move on if there happens to be a change in their circumstances. They are male equivalent of internet feminists, probably had a rough time with the opposite sex in school and didn't use the experience as an impetus to improve themselves.
Deleted User wrote: » I dunno. I suspect that if i'd found a group of people I could contact through an internet forum who had similar issues to me, I'd never have learned to date/communicate effectively. There are levels of depression that go along with failing at something that everyone else around you seem to pick up naturally. I can still remember the apathy of living in Ireland and not succeeding at dating... There wasn't much else to do in small-town Ireland and everyone pretty much knew your failures in this area. Horrible times. But thank Christ for Ross Jeffries... haha. Saved me from all that bitterness.
silverharp wrote: » given that there are etiquette and finishing schools for girls, a male one would be hilarious. Its gets to the conundrum of the implied situation that boys should either make it or break on their own initiative or that passing on the wisdom of ages would be considered mysogonistic if boys were given the opportunity to see behind the curtain as it were.
Deleted User wrote: » Well, seduction if naturally developed or learned simply through experience is something to be applauded. Seduction if learned is suspicious and dishonest. Don't you just love the logic? I dated a woman once who said I was the most charismatic and enjoyable person she'd ever dated... (she was a very popular woman who had remained single) after our relationship, and we became friends she found out that I'd learned to communicate more effectively through reading, seminars, etc. She believed I'd been dishonest and false. I hadn't lied about anything, my feelings had been true, etc. It didn't matter. If it had all come naturally though...
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » That's your perspective. I have experience of propel formally passing on their wisdom and experience to us and i never considered it misogynistic. I went to a boarding school which only broke up every 3/4 weeks. So the school organised a guy to come and speak about relationships and women in general. It was like an advanced sex education course. It went into the realities of relationships, the importance of pleasure in sex and how to make sure you get to know your partner's turn ons and turn offs. Some of the chivalry stuff was a bit out dated but it was generally great and it was handled great. Surely if someone is to impart their wisdom onto younger men, the onus is on the older men to organise it.
silverharp wrote: » lol, also a little hypocritical as its perfectly acceptable for women to take grooming and appearance firmly into the fakeup category. By virtue of the fact you did adapt proved you had it in you in the first place.
silverharp wrote: » I'd certainly approve of something like that but in an institutional setting there would be limits. Also given how education is more or less being taken over by women where the focus is about "empowering women" I think it would clash with anything approaching "empowering men", there is a bigger chance that they will be subjected to "toxic masculinity" classes or that men should knuckle under and become male feminists, because women find the traits of male feminists very attractive
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Humm. We'll it was an all boys school, with a mostly male teaching staff, male president, male principle and vice principal and male head of year and male delivering the courses never heard the term toxic masculinity until i heard men complaining about the use of the term. And it had no obvious feminist content. But hey, don't let the person with experience of how it actually happened get in the way of the narrative, 'the feminists are coming!'. It was great and it fostered a lot of confidence in how to treat women and what to expect in a relationship. What do you mean about limits in an institutional setting? It was a Catholic school so it didn't go into much detail on sexual orientation but it didn't ask about contraception. Are those the type of limits you mean?
silverharp wrote: » I'm thinking more in terms of practical relationship advice, for instance traits to look for in women, traits to avoid. There are obviously men ending up in long term relationships with bullies, narcissists etc. the men I can only guess didn't have the emotional radar to pick up these serious defects or because of the way they were raised thought the behaviour was normal. Or even things as simple as the psychology of nite clubs, while we live in a free market economy there is a whole nite club industry which makes a fair bit of green by exploiting young men. As I said in another post young men can discuss these kind of things on line now or find "big brother" type advice even if they have to sift the wheat form the chaff.
Sweden brings back military conscription amid Baltic tensions 2 March 2017https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39140100
The 13,000 who undergo the military tests will be a mixture of volunteers and conscripts. "You are part of the conscript system once you've done the tests - men and women are treated equally," Ms Nyh Radebo said.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Well, seduction if naturally developed or learned simply through experience is something to be applauded. Seduction if learned is suspicious and dishonest. Don't you just love the logic? I dated a woman once who said I was the most charismatic and enjoyable person she'd ever dated... (she was a very popular woman who had remained single) after our relationship, and we became friends she found out that I'd learned to communicate more effectively through reading, seminars, etc. She believed I'd been dishonest and false. I hadn't lied about anything, my feelings had been true, etc. It didn't matter. If it had all come naturally though...
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » In principle i have no problem with NLP or body language etc. Making eye contact promotes liking, so does active listening and a number of things most people know about. I think those learned skills are probably in action all around us every day learned through trial and error without conscious thought. I think the real problem with PUA and speed dating or even NLP is when you see someone who is clearly running a routine or a script. They just look like grifters and it gives the whole thing a bad name. And if you could imagine someone who doesn't get social cues but they're doing some PUA routine, it's likely to look really obvious. How would you foster social responsibility in girls re the way they treat boys?
tritium wrote: » Personally I’d argue that anyone who didn’t value the efforts someone had made to develop as a communicator is a bit of an idiot tbh. There seems to be this backlash against PUA on the back of its somehow manipulation and only about getting into someone’s pants (to be fair many of thenpropoenents if PUA don’t help themselves here) however the tools they use are much more useful in life than pulling in a nightclub. They’re also the tools that many of the leader figures on both sides use to get ahead every day.
In a work environment you can expect communication skills and styles to be a big part of the skills you’ll be pushed towards in performance reviews. Why would you do any different outside of work? You still need to communicate to get the things you need etc- I say this as someone who, like you spent a very long time developing my communications styles and who would be far from a natural there.
Why we don’t actually teach these skills to boys and girls in school is beyond me. Communication isn’t manipulation but if you don’t understand how communication works it’s far easier to be manipulated imho. Far better to give everyone the skills instead of just letting people stumble around until they hopefully figure bits and piece out
Slopping out in prisons appeal to be heard by Supreme Court Around 1,000 other slopping out cases are on hold until this appeal is decided
iptba wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/slopping-out-in-prisons-appeal-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court-1.3552377 They could have avoided a lot of these claims if in the 1990s they had upgraded the facilities for men rather than (or perhaps as well as) upgrading the facilities for women to the Dochas Centre.
We need men to say stop also Refuse to participate in all male panels Gender quotas across state broadcasting#wfesummerschool Great panel
Deleted User wrote: » I've never even heard of a woman refusing to sit on an all female panel. And men are expected to refuse all male ones? Most of the teacher panels/committees in my region are completely operated by women with a token priest to represent the Church schools.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
