Sooooo… when are we gonna admit that men’s mental health is unfortunaly heavily tied to their career prospects?
No, not yet?
Okay I’ll keep waiting.
sigh
…
It’s capitalism.
Men’s well being wouldn’t be tied to career prospects if it weren’t for the rat race we are all brainwashed into since birth that is capitalism.
You have worth as a human beyond your capacity to produce profit.
Yeah and the reason young men are finding it hard to have real life friends and end up on uncle forums is because we lost most of our “third spaces” thanks to them not making money and shutting down or being underfunded or closed if they were publicly owned.
Ontop of this the constant algorithms that push specific topics to people over and over due to it keeping them on the platform and therefore generates income.
It does feel like 75% of this problem could be fixed by stopping corporate greed and fixing our local communities as whole.
we lost most of our “third spaces” thanks to them not making money and shutting down or being underfunded or closed if they were publicly owned.
And also shut down by female supremacist activists.
A gym started up last decade in my town, as a men’s only gym. A place for guys to come and exercise without distraction.
It got sued within the year by a woman who tried to join. It went to court. Company ran out of money before the court case closed, went bankrupt and had to close.
The case proceeded to completion, the woman won, and all the women’s groups in the area crowed about their phyrric “victory” over misogyny.
There are three women’s-only gyms in town, six in the greater geographical region. None of these have ever had men demanding to become members, because those men would be nailed to the wall for being misogynists.
This happens eventually to all “men’s spaces” that exist long enough: they are forced to no longer be “men’s spaces”, because being a “man’s space” is misogynistic.
Women’s spaces? Totally fine. Not misandric in the least.
See how “equality” works?
Edit:
Pick any third space where women’s only spaces exist, and you will also find men’s-only spaces that were sued either into nonexistence or into opening their doors for women, which caused it to no longer be a “men’s space”. From boxing clubs to smoking clubs to the f**king Boy Scouts of America, men’s spaces everywhere are being eliminated in the drive to “combat misogyny”.
Meanwhile, the president of the Girl Scouts privately admitted (can’t recall exactly when, but it was either during or shortly after the Boy Scout’s trial) that she would rather shut down the entire org than allow a single boy to join. And she was lauded for that position.
“Rules for thee, but not for me.”
That isn’t “equality” in the least. That’s blatant gender bigotry. And that is what the “black pill” is built upon - actual real-world evidence.
You want the black pill to stop existing? QUIT SHOVELLING THEM COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF AMMUNITION, FFS.
You literally implied that women fighting for the right to be included everywhere. Was about supremacy. That feminism is about supremacy. Your own words. Read your previous post. Perhaps you misspoke. But I don’t think so. And neither did most of the other people reading.
You literally implied that women fighting for the right to be included everywhere. Was about supremacy. That feminism is about supremacy. Your own words. Read your previous post. Perhaps you misspoke. But I don’t think so. And neither did most of the other people reading.
This is borderline sealioning, an explicit trolling act.
But there is a chance that your bleeding ignorance might be genuine. So I’ll bite.
The problem is that women are forcing their way into every man’s space, and preventing men from having a space of their own under cries of “misogyny”, while simultaneously fighting to keep their own spaces as women-only.
That isn’t “equality” in any shape or form. That’s gender supremacy.
A perfect example is the Girl Guides of America. Right when the lawsuit against the Boy Scouts had wrapped up and forced them to include girls, the president of the Girl Scouts admitted in private and off the record that she would rather see the entire organization shuttered permanently than allow a single boy admittance.
The same goes for shelters of all kinds, particularly those for Domestic Violence. About 70% of all non-reciprocal DV (only one person doing the hitting) is women beating up men. But of the 2,481 DV shelters in America, only TWO are for men. Nearly all the ones for women are partially to fully publicly funded, but men’s shelters are 100% privately funded because public funding is politically radioactive - the moment any politician tries to support male victims, they get painted as “violently misogynistic” by women’s groups and fail to get re-elected. Most women’s groups also refuse to discuss male victims of DV because to do so is to lead credence to the fact that they even exist.
So yes. Feminism has nothing to do with equality anymore. Feminism is straight-up gender supremacy, full stop.
It’s why I, as someone fighting for true equality, call myself an egalitarianist. I see any man being called “feminist” as nothing more than a pejorative; a mark of anti-equality shame.
How is wanting to be equal supremacist?
If you want to run a public business, the social contract has always been that you serve the public.
Claiming that men/boys need to be separated because “they can’t control themselves” only enables the incel type behaviors. As well as belittling men. Because as a cis man, I certainly have no issue respecting a woman. Or any issue focusing on other things when they’re around. If men and boys were more familiar with interacting with women, they likely wouldn’t be bitter incels. Unable to understand why no woman wants to be around them. Like, literally.
Claiming that men/boys need to be separated because “they can’t control themselves”
Where did I say anything even remotely like this? Point it out. Quote it.
But you can’t, because I didn’t.
Quit being intellectually bankrupt - quit putting words into my mouth.
Men’s spaces is what allows men and boys to open up in ways they instinctively and unconsciously prevent themselves from doing when women are around. Males have an autonomic response around women that causes them to be more closed off, more resistant to criticism, and far less likely to demonstrate vulnerability to other men.
Men’s spaces are what allow them to better learn from other men in a space that allows them to better learn more open and accepting.
It has nothing to do with your vacuous and thought-terminating “incel” bullshit.
These third spaces don’t have to be exclusively young men lol. In fact it might be better if they aren’t given the specific topic of people we are talking about in this thread. In general an increase in community locations is a good thing, but it seemed especially so for people in the intel rabbit hole. Somewhere casual they can come out of their shells and meet people in the real world!
These third spaces don’t have to be exclusively young men
Average age of the membership was 46. That doesn’t sound “young” to me.
Some men are just eager to have a communal workout environment that doesn’t have gym thots preening their thirst trap poses all over the place
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Imagine not wanting any hot women around.
Classic MGTOW vibes here
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
Imagine not wanting any hot women around.
Classic MGTOW vibes here
Imagine being the guy whose primary excuse to go to the gym is to “ogle hot women”.
Yeah, you’re a real progressive guy.
The sign of a man with experience is when he’s become sick of women’s shit.
The woman I am married to - which BTW, makes me wholly ineligible for MGTOW status - is one of the few women out there I actually want to spend time with beyond social niceties. I have zero interest in the vast majority of women out there - regardless of “hotness” - because I have come to know how women in general act and react; what their motivations are and how they approach life in general. And that just makes me wholly uninterested in them.
Don’t get me wrong, I will absolutely be polite and civil to women. I have absolutely no problem socializing with them and making them feel appreciated and valued as I would any human being, regardless of gender (or fractional thereof). I just have no interest in them as women.
Seems like a huge part of the problem is equating “self-worth” to “getting laid”.
Putting your dick in a woman doesn’t make you any more of a man / successful / worth more than anyone else.
Societal expectations need to be rejected. Oh, success is measured by your ability to get married, have a house, and raise your 2.5 children? For a vast majority, NONE OF THAT IS CURRENTLY SUSTAINABLE AND/OR OBTAINABLE. So why bother? Right?
I get it. It ain’t right, but I get it.
It’s literally the most natural thing in the world to equate reproductive effectiveness to worth. All life is “worth” their reproductive effectiveness. So not having sex is very relevant to our entire existence as a species.
As such, our mental faculties put a heavy punishment in the form of mental pain, i.e. “self-worth attached to getting laid”, on this whole thing.
This has very little to do with societal expectations. It’s simple biology. Not getting laid is supposed to be one of the worst things for an organism.
You’re rationally right with what you say, but it’s simply not very relevant. Rationality does not help with our most deeply rooted biological desires. The only thing that helps is getting them fulfilled, i.e. having sex.
Everything you wrote is nonsense. Pointing at a process that often occurs - evolution - and then working backwards to claim that organisms must feel pain when they don’t reproduce is completely antilogical. Evolution may be caused by feelings of pain or suffering when otganisms don’t reproduce, or it could be something completely different. You are putting the effect before the cause.
Trying to do evolutionary psychoanalysis on something as cognitively complex as a human is practically guaranteed to give you wrong conclusions. What’s more, this sort of bullshit is part and parcel of a lot of bioessentialist rhetoric, so if I were you I would definitely consider revaluating a few things.
In this case the logic is sound. Evolution doesn’t often occur, it always occurs. And we’re not talking about secondary or tertiary reproductive fitness (ie: humans are efficient at running so they must run, men are physically strong so they must defend), we’re talking about actual reproductive encounters.
Its the entire goal of the of all life on earth. There’s a carrot for anything getting you closer to reproducing and sticks for anything that moves you the wrong direction. Despair and discomfort can be caused by plenty of things, but you don’t have to disentangle the entire human experience to draw the line from a lack of healthy sexual experience to an ideology based on extreme sexual frustration.
Edit: again, down votes with no counter argument. For some reason people agree that abstinence in sex ed is a bad policy but turn around and say sex isn’t part of normal human function. Which is it?
None of my argument is about regressive bioessentialism. There’s no inherent violent masculinity or genetic fitness or any stance about what relationships are “supposed” to look like. Men are just having less sex than women.
24% of men aged 22-34 did not had sex in 2022-2023 vs 13% of women. That’s a much larger cohort to propagate that frustration. You can argue that there are other social factors that make it manifest in this specific toxic ideology (as opposed depression, anxiety and body image issues) but the root cause is the same.
More sex means less frustration about lack of sex, less sex means more. Why jump through hoops to make it about personal failing or some other indirect cause?
It’s not a ‘goal’ there is no purpose or goal to evolution or life…it’s a property of life that it propagates itself but that’s not the goal, reproduction is a function or a property of life. You could also argue the ‘goal’ is survival and there are sticks and carrots poking at making an organism survive, but again it just sounds like you’re misunderstanding how those words are used in academia, you’re doing the same thing with fitness. Fitness in evolution isn’t about running or being strong it’s how well an organism functions in its environment and what makes an organism fit varies from organism to organism and environment to environment.
One of us is misunderstanding for sure.
Fitness is a quantitative representation of individual reproductive success.
You’re conflating metaphysical goals with the literal biological goals of propogation. It has nothing to do with survival, plenty of animals sacrifice themselves after reproducing, either as a food source or lack of evolutionary pressure to stay alive. The human exceptionalism that our awareness puts us above these natural processes is part of the problem.
Yeah you’re the one misunderstanding lol
Must be a reading comprehension issue, I specifically pointed to genetic [biological] fitness in that context. The definition is right there, I’m not wrong. I can reword it if you want: “my argument is explicitly not supporting eugenics”
And still, no actual counter argument. Just responses that might as well be “I don’t like what you’re saying” followed by a short philosophical essay. What humans morally should or shouldn’t do is completely orthogonal to what humans are as biological creatures.
If I’m misunderstanding the dozens of hours of conversations I’ve had with personal friends who professionally research animal+human evolution and behavioral neuroscience, please enlighten me. To summarize my understanding:
- Sex is a widely researched topic, it’s mental health benefits are well established and there are dozens of studies on the physiological benefits in multiple species.
- Neural pathways for sexual behavior have ties to drug addiction and violence.
- Disrupting or over stimulating those pathways has very clear behavioral implications.
All of this points to a very reasonable statement: humans are designed for a non-zero amount sex and large deviations from that can negatively impact social behavior.
People in this thread hallucinate that as an endorsement of regressive public policy or toxic ideology. It’s possible (if you reeeeally really stretch your mind) to want more healthy sexual behavior in society without also supporting sexual enslavement.
