Young South Korean Men Revolt Against Feminism in South Korea

[Satinavian]

How is that relevant?

If "control over womens sexuality" was what determines hierarchy, it would not only be necessary to have such control, but to showcase it, to have it acknowledged by others. A hierarchy only works if all participents have enough information to agree on each others relative position.

Which is obviously not happening for this measure at any relevant scale.



I accept that you had a hard life and reasons for your issues with maskulinity, but your insights are nothing but nonsense.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If "control over womens sexuality" was what determines hierarchy, it would not only be necessary to have such control, but to showcase it, to have it acknowledged by others. A hierarchy only works if all participents have enough information to agree on each others relative position.

So? Power structures based on lies are nothing new. I'd also note that Terminal Blue said "part". And it's hardly unknown for men to worry about people finding out they are a virgin and lose their street cred.

As social animals, that is the drive of every human on some level, excluding the 'from other men' part.
....
And hang on. How does raping women achieve that?

Complicated question, but by way of example, Trump boasted about sexually assaulting multiple women because he thought it'd impress people. And, for large numbers of people, it did.

 

[Terminal Blue]

As social animals, that is the drive of every human on some level, excluding the 'from other men' part.

True, but I think the "from other men" part is important.

And hang on. How does raping women achieve that?

Beyond the fact that raping women typically looks, from the outside, very much like having the ability to convince them to have sex with you, it typically doesn't. Not in any exceptional way.

But (and clearly I'm an idiot for thinking this was obvious because it seems to have tripped a bunch of people up) I am not talking about literally having power over women. That kind of power doesn't really exist, because in the real world women are actually complex human beings with personhood and agency. The real world is quite different from the fantasy world of masculinity. In the real world, sticking your dick in someone doesn't imply any kind of mastery or power over them, or that you've persuaded them to give up something precious, it's just putting one bit of meat inside another.

Sex and power do not naturally go together. We put them together, sometimes because we've been trained to do so and sometimes just for our own entertainment. None of it is "real", none of it ever actually has to align with reality.

When I say "power over women", I don't mean actually having to demonstrate to the world that you have that power. That is largely redundant. I mean being the kind of person who is presumed to have that power (regardless of whether or not you actually do). I mean cultivating a personality that is able to convince everyone including yourself that you have that power. That personality is the problem, that personality is not capable of realising or accepting that it does not actually have the power it is pretending to have.

If "control over womens sexuality" was what determines hierarchy, it would not only be necessary to have such control, but to showcase it, to have it acknowledged by others.

Again, it appears I was mistaken in assuming that this would be obvious.

"Control over women's sexuality" is not actually a thing that anyone has, certainly not in the way people like to pretend. Our culture has developed an entire symbolism around identifying men who supposedly have power over women (and indeed, over "lesser" men). That symbolism is a huge part of what we call "masculinity", and is certainly the most obvious manifestation of masculinity. None of it is real.

The problem is that people think it is real, and outside of the fantasy world of masculinity the only way to actually have that kind of control is to cross the line into coercion.

 

[Satinavian]

You are talking a lot about some fantasy world others don't seem to share or even know. Of course you have to explain all that.

Which coincidently makes me even more skeptical towards those statements. People not understanding this are a hint towards it not actually reflecting common culture.

So? Power structures based on lies are nothing new. I'd also note that Terminal Blue said "part". And it's hardly unknown for men to worry about people finding out they are a virgin and lose their street cred.

I have never in real life heard anyone bragging about sexual exploits. There is no hierarchy in our culture based on it. Virgin shaming is a trope but i am very uncertain how often that actually really happens and where.

Complicated question, but by way of example, Trump boasted about sexually assaulting multiple women because he thought it'd impress people. And, for large numbers of people, it did.

We should never start taking Trump of all people as measure for normality. Aside from that i remember far far more people even from his supporters being concerned how those utterances might hurt his chances, not boost them.

 

[McElroy]

People not understanding this are a hint towards it not actually reflecting common culture. I have never in real life heard anyone bragging about sexual exploits. There is no hierarchy in our culture based on it. Virgin shaming is a trope but I am very uncertain how often that actually really happens and where.

For balance, I know a couple of bragging types and they probably do think they are more powerful because of that. Yeah, they sleep around and let you know, but holy shit I've no dreams of challenging them on that front. Sure, I'd like one sex life pls, but I wouldn't imitate them even if I had the chance. The rest of the guys I've heard talk about relationships - the vast majority - aren't like that at all. The fantasy world exists in people's minds, I'm sure, but the problem personality Terminal Blue describes is not that damn common.

As for virgin shaming or to expand a little bit: women take a history of failure (no access to relationships) as evidence of deserving that in the future as well. Anecdotal, sure, but I've asked and listened to some women about it.

 

[BrawlMan]

Except it not sexual harassment it's rape they want to try and teach people not to do, the thing basically any right minded person already knows not to do. It's also pushing for teaching instead of measure like teaching the idea of looking after people on nights out, drink testing strips and anti spiking measures and teaching people other things like don't take unlicensed supposed mini cabs and make sure some-one in your group in not going to get blind drunk so they can look out for the others (and to be fair change round who this is). The common response to suggesting those things is "We shouldn't have to do it it's putting the blame on women when men are the issue" because minor inconveniences are so intolerable to them but most of the stuff (other than anti drink spiking measures) are things guys have to do too just to avoid being robbed or attacked and more the anti spiking stuff is becoming relevant to guys too because groups are using it to target men to rob them in recent years too.

You are truly the lowest of the low. What kind of pathetic shit is spewing out of your mouth?

 

[Schadrach]

How is that relevant?

I'm not talking about men actually behave in their relationships with women. That has nothing to do with it. There's a very good reason most men don't like to let other men see that.

How, exactly, could you arrange people into a competitive hierarchy in which somehow everyone knows their place in it but no one knows about the trait being used to arrange the hierarchy?

And hang on. How does raping women achieve that?

Weren't you paying attention? Raping women achieves that because your ability to exert power over women determines how accepted you are, even though generally most other men are only vaguely if at all aware of your interactions with women they don't also know personally, somehow...

 

[Generals]

Firstly, didn't say you were. Go project on your own time.

Secondly, I don't really trust you to know what you are, because I don't think you've ever been anything else.

Oh right, it's both subconscious and conscious. Look you may have not said it literally but everything you said in that post described men as being loser fratboys. Being in a everlasting fight for dominance, having no intimate friendships, unable to be single for a long time and also trying to continuously dominate women in that everlasting struggle for dominance (or hierarchical recognition). If that doesn't describe your stereotypical macho fratboy I don't know what does.

And the only one projecting anything here is you. You are projecting your distorted and sexist view of men and what it means being a man onto the entire (straight?) male sex. (Did I also forget to mention the nicely placed heterophobe "for those of us who aren't heterosexual it can look kind of pathetic"? Because clearly all heterosexuals view things the same way...)

 

[Mister Mumbler]

To be able to take a shit in peace.

This is why the Pope is always taking a shit in the woods.

 

[AnxietyProne]

Oh no, words on a web forum! No need to take things so personally.

Someone says that my wife is not safe around me, I take it personally, jack. Not sorry.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You are talking a lot about some fantasy world others don't seem to share or even know.

You seem to be confused about this situation, so let me correct that.

This is about the furthest I have ever had to talk down to anyone in my entire time on this forum. It is extremely difficult. It is so difficult that I don't feel like I have actually conveyed any of my real thoughts, because the point I am making seems so incredibly simple.

True, I am using the wrong words, but only because these are the only words we are capable of having this conversation in.

I am not actually talking about a fantasy world. I know I said I was, but that was for your benefit. I am talking about the political substructure of the real world, I am talking about belief. Not conscious, deliberate belief, but belief in the assumptions that exist but never get questioned because they are so normalized that noone ever looks at them too closely. I am not talking about silly stereotypes of cartoon jocks bragging about their sexual conquests. If the hierarchy (which is a deliberate oversimplification of hegemony) I was talking about were so fragile people had to brag about it, it wouldn't be worth talking about. If it were so organized that it required people to consciously sort and order themselves by rank, it would have been immediately destroyed. If it couldn't incorporate nice middle aged Christian men in stable marriages, it would have alienated a significant proportion of the men who actually have power within this culture. Of course, nice middle aged Christian men still rape women..

How, exactly, could you arrange people into a competitive hierarchy in which somehow everyone knows their place in it but no one knows about the trait being used to arrange the hierarchy?

Fuck it, let's do a little excercise.

James Bond is a fantasy. He is a man who is not real. James Bond kills men and fucks women. There are tons of films about James Bond killing men and fucking women, and men love it. They love it so much new films keep being made. Men who have never killed anyone still love James Bond. Men who are happily married still love James Bond. Why? It makes no sense from this absurdly literal standpoint I've chosen to adopt for no reason save to be annoying.

See, it's almost like when these men watch James Bond, they aren't watching a perfect recreation of their own lives (amazing), it's almost like they don't care that they have more in common with the comic relief side characters and random mooks getting killed than they do with James Bond. Do they want to be James Bond? In a literal sense, maybe some of them do, but most of them probably don't want to kill anyone, or would miss their wives and kids or wouldn't want to be in constant peril.

So what is it, what is going on here?

James Bond is a man. He's a fantasy man who is not real. When you watch James Bond kill men and fuck women, James Bond is not you. He is better than you. He is someone you could never be, with your stable marriages and ethical belief in the value of human life and inability to climb around on top of aeroplanes. But James Bond is a man, and you are a man. You exist on the same frame of reference. If James Bond is better than you, who are you better than?

It is not hard to form hierarchies. It is trivially easy in fact. It's so easy that the actual criticism you should be making is whether any of these hierarchies are stable or if they're constantly being formed, reformed and challenged by competing hierarchies.. to which the answer is yes. I'm not talking about a military or corporate hierarchy, I'm not talking about a system with ranks or positions in which everyone knows their place. I'm talking about an unstable cultural hierarchy (or a cultural hegemony, more accurately). The people who make up that hegemony don't even have to be real, in fact those at the top tend to either be unreal (like James Bond) or so divorced from the lives, experience and capability of most men that they may as well not be real.

Because, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, masculinity is not real. The kind of automatic, harmless power which James Bond has over women does not exist in reality. It's a fiction created by the people who write the movies. If you try to replicate that power, you're going to end up hurting someone.

 

[Kwak]

You seem to be confused about this situation, so let me correct that.

....

But then you just described what you AREN'T talking about, which is only half-enlightening.

 

[Terminal Blue]

But then you just described what you AREN'T talking about, which is only half-enlightening.

Do I need to repeat myself again?

If it's not clear yet, what is repeating it one more time supposed to do? I feel like I've already repeated myself a whole bunch.

 

[Kwak]

Do I need to repeat myself again?

If it's not clear yet, what is repeating it one more time supposed to do? I feel like I've already repeated myself a whole bunch.

Do you mean repeat what you said in that post you specifically made to clear up confusion, where you didn't actually positively define it, or was it somewhere else?

Was it this single sentence?

I am talking about the political substructure of the real world, I am talking about belief.

 

[Trunkage]

It sounds to me like you're using an over-broad definition of "masculinity" in order to make your point, though to be fair I'm not sure I would be able to create a concise definition of masculinity of femininity.

I would point out that there is a bunch of conservatives who made a a definition of masculinity, particularly in the 80s, that I would term as toxic. A LOT of this reaction is just purging that 'Revenge of the Nerds' abuse out of masculinity

I personally would just call it being an asshole

I would call that utter nonsense.

Most men are not/barely aware of what relationships with women other men have if those women are not aquaintances as well. You can't build a hierachy on this.

I never thought you could build a hierarchy on NOT having relationships with women. But here we are.

I'll note that IMO most of this can be just made up.... but can lead to some f'ed up expectation of both men and women. See pick up artists

 

[Generals]

James Bond is a fantasy. He is a man who is not real. James Bond kills men and fucks women. There are tons of films about James Bond killing men and fucking women, and men love it. They love it so much new films keep being made. Men who have never killed anyone still love James Bond. Men who are happily married still love James Bond. Why? It makes no sense from this absurdly literal standpoint I've chosen to adopt for no reason save to be annoying.

See, it's almost like when these men watch James Bond, they aren't watching a perfect recreation of their own lives (amazing), it's almost like they don't care that they have more in common with the comic relief side characters and random mooks getting killed than they do with James Bond. Do they want to be James Bond? In a literal sense, maybe some of them do, but most of them probably don't want to kill anyone, or would miss their wives and kids or wouldn't want to be in constant peril.

So what is it, what is going on here?

James Bond is a man. He's a fantasy man who is not real. When you watch James Bond kill men and fuck women, James Bond is not you. He is better than you. He is someone you could never be, with your stable marriages and ethical belief in the value of human life and inability to climb around on top of aeroplanes. But James Bond is a man, and you are a man. You exist on the same frame of reference. If James Bond is better than you, who are you better than?

It is not hard to form hierarchies. It is trivially easy in fact. It's so easy that the actual criticism you should be making is whether any of these hierarchies are stable or if they're constantly being formed, reformed and challenged by competing hierarchies.. to which the answer is yes. I'm not talking about a military or corporate hierarchy, I'm not talking about a system with ranks or positions in which everyone knows their place. I'm talking about an unstable cultural hierarchy (or a cultural hegemony, more accurately). The people who make up that hegemony don't even have to be real, in fact those at the top tend to either be unreal (like James Bond) or so divorced from the lives, experience and capability of most men that they may as well not be real.

Because, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, masculinity is not real. The kind of automatic, harmless power which James Bond has over women does not exist in reality. It's a fiction created by the people who write the movies. If you try to replicate that power, you're going to end up hurting someone.

It's very telling you are bringing up James Bond and people fantasizing about being James Bond while leaving out the most important reason why people fantasize about being James Bond and instead focus solely on what can be vilified and serve to reinforce your point.
And let me give you the answer: James Bond always saves the world. Yes that's it, he saves the world. He doesn't just kill for shits and giggles and his sexual adventures are just a bonus. Had he been a gratuitous murderer a lot less people would fantasize about being 007 and I'd suspect the profile of those who still would would be quite different to the profile of those who do now.

Another extremely simple element to also bring forward is that a lot of human beings have a tendency to always desire what they do not have. It's the syndrome of : the grass always looks greener next door. Most people have not and never will have a life like James Bond and that alone also makes it "attractive" to a certain extent. Especially if you get to be the one saving the world. Who wouldn't want to save the world if he could?

So what is going on here? Yes people would love to be able to save the world and yes a lot of men indeed like to be as attractive and successful with women as James Bond is presented to be. I mean, why would you not want to be attractive to the sex you are attracted to? Even if you don't need it and are fine in your relationship it's not a trait that would be considered undesirable.

But in my opinion I don't even see how that is such a relevant example. These types of fantasies are usually extremely superficial and anyone who'd actually think about it would soon realize they do not want to be James Bond.

 

[tstorm823]

You seem to be confused about this situation, so let me correct that.

This is about the furthest I have ever had to talk down to anyone in my entire time on this forum. It is extremely difficult. It is so difficult that I don't feel like I have actually conveyed any of my real thoughts, because the point I am making seems so incredibly simple.

True, I am using the wrong words, but only because these are the only words we are capable of having this conversation in.

Have you considered the possibility that you're having trouble communicating because you're attempting to talk down, and literally everyone else in the conversations is above you?

 

[Kwak]

It's very telling you are bringing up James Bond and people fantasizing about being James Bond while leaving out the most important reason why people fantasize about being James Bond and instead focus solely on what can be vilified and serve to reinforce your point.
And let me give you the answer: James Bond always saves the world. Yes that's it, he saves the world. He doesn't just kill for shits and giggles and his sexual adventures are just a bonus. Had he been a gratuitous murderer a lot less people would fantasize about being 007 and I'd suspect the profile of those who still would would be quite different to the profile of those who do now.

Another extremely simple element to also bring forward is that a lot of human beings have a tendency to always desire what they do not have. It's the syndrome of : the grass always looks greener next door. Most people have not and never will have a life like James Bond and that alone also makes it "attractive" to a certain extent. Especially if you get to be the one saving the world. Who wouldn't want to save the world if he could?

So what is going on here? Yes people would love to be able to save the world and yes a lot of men indeed like to be as attractive and successful with women as James Bond is presented to be. I mean, why would you not want to be attractive to the sex you are attracted to? Even if you don't need it and are fine in your relationship it's not a trait that would be considered undesirable.

But in my opinion I don't even see how that is such a relevant example. These types of fantasies are usually extremely superficial and anyone who'd actually think about it would soon realize they do not want to be James Bond.

That's assuming that anyone is fantasising about being James Bond in the first place. Who honestly wants that? It's just fun to watch someone do ridiculous things with a smooth and cool demeanor. That's really the only desirable thing about him, staying calm under pressure.

 

[Kwak]

Have you considered the possibility that you're having trouble communicating because you're attempting to talk down, and literally everyone else in the conversations is above you?

I'm definitely not, I find terminal's takes interesting and insightful and to come from a place of genuine intellectual authority - he's just lost me in the conclusions he's making here, if I even follow the argument in the first place (I probably don't). Though I find validity to much of his critiques of cultural manhood, I feel the conclusion a bit too extreme in this case - though I don't doubt he has real-world experiences that led him to it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Illinois Judge Reverses Conviction of 18-Year-Old Rapist So He Won't Have to Go to Prison

The survivor, 16, reportedly attempted suicide after the sexual assault and now "wishes she wouldn't have even said anything."

jezebel.com

Yeah, tell me again that this isn't a culture thing?