Male problems only ever come up as a counter-argument

[deeman010]

.... snip....

If you are a representative of the "in power" group, whoever that may be in the discussion, you trying to express your problems at all is shot down all the time. "You don't have it as bad as we do (or don't have the same problems as we do), thus your problems are irrelevant" is the common kind of response you see. It kind of reminds me of the whole "First World Problems", or "Check Your Privilege" fad that seems to serve no purpose than to socially compel people to not express their issues and concerns. You're not living in a war torn, 3rd world country, thus you can't complain about things.

Eh, I'm rambling at this point, and I think I lost my train of thought. But yeah, I think it's partly social conditioning that men aren't supposed to complain about things, so we only bring it up as a counter argument when we get tired of hearing people shit talk us about how easy we've got things. When we might not have it as easy as they assume we do.

To be honest... some of the problems of first world citizens really do seem like needless concerns. They literally have the power to move the Earth, they have the power to fix it too but, even with news of impending doom like that one of Greenland melting too fast, they won't do squat.

I know that gender issues and etc... etc... matter but can people in the first world please be more politically and socially involved? Being born POOR(!!!) in the US AUTOMATICALLY makes you richer than 68% of the WORLD'S population. The number reaches close to the 95th +++ percent when you add in the rich.

 

[Lightknight]

The term "MRA" is used as an insult despite being a generic designation referring to anyone supporting the rights of men.

It's not a generic term, it refers to someone that has self-identified as a member of the Men's Rights Movement. You have other similar groups that aren't made up of MRAs, because they identify differently.

(Not to mention feminists that support the rights of men without being MRAs)

MRA is a designation you can apply to any organization concerned with men's rights. It is a nebulous term without any unifying theme except the focus on men's rights. Unless you're reading a different Wikipedia article than I am. It's one of several groups making up men's movement but this one is far broader than the rest.

What of those groups that expressly state they aren't part of the MRM, though?

MRA and MRM are synonymous. The true catch all is just "Men's Movement" but all that is, is a catch all for any movement centered around male gender issues rather than necessarily anything concerned with rights. It's (Men's Movement) is very broad gender issues that can just deal around philosophical gender roles like what it means to be a man inherently vs modern society rather than necessarily kind of focus on discrimination or activism.

So when you are talking about Men's rights you'd really have to hit something like the Men's Liberation Movement (which dissolved in the 70's to form the following two), profeminist men's movement and men's rights movement (MRA). The first one focuses is men's rights informed by feminism which itself is kind of offensive as a men's movement to focus on women's movement. When someone like Emma Watson has any kind of focus on men in relation to feminism we see tremendous backlash from the feminist community. You don't define a movement by a movement that is frequently critical of it or one that has a dichotomous focus. The latter does not presuppose some kind of evil patriarchy out to oppress men and instead focuses on elements of discrimination specifically facing it including areas of feminism that have overshot their goals in a way that have led to the harm of men. You can therefore say that MRM/MRA is more broadly men's rights focused whereas profeminism is more specifically men's rights with a focus on feminism no matter how oxymoronic that sound.

In any event, this is why MRM/MRA is the prevailing term of men's rights movements. As such, many feminists would even call profeminist men's movement MRAs just because of the automatic offense obtained from bringing up men's issues which are seen as competitive with women's issues even if they aren't. I am pro-feminism in as much as feminism may be defined as the pursuit of gender equality and fair treatment. I am anti-feminism in as much as the movement has obtained superiority over equality in some areas and in some cases have engaged in open discrimination against men which is in stark contrast with the original goal of obtaining equality.

Stereotyping is fun.

And yet here you are, helping fulfill them.

and all you need to think to qualify as an MRA is that Feminism has overshot its goals in some areas in a way that harms men and actual equality

You didn?t contest my assertion that MRAs are oriented around anti-feminism; you just argued that antifeminism was justified.

In fact, you went further than I did! I merely asserted that in practice many MRAs end up being anti-feminist; you say they all are in principle, to the point that anti-feminism is their one unifying factor. It seems I was too cautious in my assessment.

The moment we start talking about the concept that modern feminists have overshot in certain areas then instantly we're designated as anti-feminist which carries the notion of being anti-equality and anti-women's rights which doesn't necessarily follow.

You assume the distinction between anti-feminist and anti-woman is obvious. It?s not. One easily and often blends into or follows behind the other. For instance, criticisms of feminism?s possible excesses are often used to castigate not the excesses, but feminism as a whole.

Then, of course, there is the question of whether or not feminism has, in fact, overshot.

Finally, many of the people you (and I) would castigate as ?anti-equality? will probably contest that label and argue that they merely think that feminism has gone too far, like you. They just have different conceptions of what ?equal? and ?fair? are.

For example, why should women be hired at a 2:1 ratio in STEM related areas just because they're women? Why should single women under the age of 30 make more money than single men under the age of 30?

Citations? I don?t mean to condemn you for not including them, but I'm not sure what you're talking about.

What's more is any time anyone says anything which a feminist disagrees with, then it is automatically placed in the misogyny category even though it may just be a difference of opinion, difference of philosophy, or even just plain ol' ignorance on a topic.

But more recently we've instead begun to hear more and more of the fringe elements?counter to the original principles of pursuing equality.

the agenda of established groups are currently using their prior success to press ahead beyond equality into superiority.

For someone who doesn?t stereotyping and strawmen, you start appealing to both awfully quick.

I wanted to leave all the quotes intact here since I'm interjecting myself into your conversation and don't want any of your responses to Light to be taken out of context. This will make my reply perhaps a bit harder to figure out, for which I apologize in advance.

First I'd like to clarify something. Light is essentially correct in stating that anti-feminism is a core part of the founding of MRM. THis fact is often sorely misunderstood though, in that MRM is not an outright rejection of feminist ideas or the feminist movement but a specific set of feminist ideas that sprung up in second wave feminism that were, or were perceived as, anti-male. To say that MRM is anti-feminist is true insofar as it relates to these specific ideas/arguments. Which arguments or ideas are rejected can be varied depending on the individual MRA and their own ideas but it is true that MRM was partially founded as a response to and a rejection of parts of feminist thinking.

It is not fair to say that anti-feminism is the sole unifying factor though, as that would ignore the biggest and most important pillar of MRM; seeking equality of the sexes is the other unifying pillar and the most important and worthy part of the MRM just as it is with feminism.

I would agree that there is not always a clear line between being anti-feminist and anti-woman. However being anti-feminist does not automatically make one anti-woman either. I consider myself a feminist and an MRA. I do reject many ideas that have sprung up out of feminism and that rejection does not make me anti-woman or anti-equality. I am an anti-sexist in that I am an activist who works to see that detrimental sexism is brought to people's attention and hopefully abolished if possible. That is not to suggest that I fight against all sexism as some sexism is justified or benign eg. splitting athletic events along the lines of biological sex allows female-only sports to prosper. This is both good for biological women and for the sports they play.

Sorry to interject myself like that but I saw that some of the usual boogeymen were about to be raised and felt the need to step on them. As far as my experiences on this site go, as far as I can tell, I am probably the biggest MRA on here in that I am an actual activist who belongs to an activist group and who helps guide the focus and policy of that group. I am not an arm-chair MRA who thinks feminism is evil and we'd be better off if women were all stay at home moms and sandwich factories. I merely mention this to put my reply into perspective. Cheers!

This is exactly right Gorrath, thank you for your interjection.

 

[Joccaren]

Ahh... very interesting to see an issue like this become a popular topic in the Escapist, never thought I'd see the day. I'm glad to see it spread even if I'm not a citizen of the US.

Is the "expected" and "traditional" male response of "just deal with it" wrong or is it society misunderstanding or lacking in capacity to get what being a man was/ is in the first place? Why is it that the other sex finds it weird that we don't use our feelings in making decisions? Why must/ should I express emotion in the first place? Isn't that just instinct? Shouldn't a logical process be the ideal as it is the logical conclusion of "feelings"?

Why not both?
Someone can make very logical decisions, and let their emotions out too. It just means that when you get really hurt by something that someone has done, you don't keep it inside and silently hate them or yourself for years, you let it out and say that they hurt you by doing that. Its called emotional maturity - not bottling everything up, and actually communicating about your feelings to others. Its also the logical thing to do, as then everyone understands everyone else better, you get help where you need it, and you confront problems that you and other people have before they get out of control.
However, society has for years insisted that any male that talks about his feelings and emotions, is a 'pussy', 'gay', 'weak', 'beta', 'feminine' and generally not a man. This has resulted in generation upon generation of men internalising all their feelings, not seeking help for serious mental health issues like depression, and generally having poor emotional maturity that results in problems for them, and others, at some point in their lives. It is one of the reasons a stupid number of men kill themselves each year, usually related to mental illnesses like depression. They don't seek help, because they've been taught that they don't deserve it.

The debate isn't about making emotional decisions vs logical ones, its about being able to talk about your emotions rather than having to hide them nearly completely.

To be honest... some of the problems of first world citizens really do seem like needless concerns. They literally have the power to move the Earth, they have the power to fix it too but, even with news of impending doom like that one of Greenland melting too fast, they won't do squat.

I know that gender issues and etc... etc... matter but can people in the first world please be more politically and socially involved? Being born POOR(!!!) in the US AUTOMATICALLY makes you richer than 68% of the WORLD'S population. The number reaches close to the 95th +++ percent when you add in the rich.

First world problems are, sadly, just as serious as third world problems to the people experiencing them. Its called the hedonic treadmill, and that kid in Africa starving to death is probably about as happy as the kid who doesn't really fit in at school, despite the vastly better lifestyle the latter kid has.
Global problems are, of course, global, but the issue is that they aren't recognised by many as it would be inconvenient. Global warming says I should spend 30,000 on a new, more efficient car? Don't have money for that. I should spend 5,000 on solar panels? I'd rather go on holiday. 600 on a water tank? I'd rather go on a shopping spree, or eat out.
What's this? Some guy in the newspaper is arguing that global warming isn't real? Well, I'm sure he's right and the scientists are wrong, because if it were the other way around that'd be inconvenient for me.
Confirmation bias is a shit thing. Sadly, in the next couple of decades, the people talking about how fake it all is are going to be very affected by it, when their neighbouring city floods as its on the coast and they talk about having to stop global warming before it reaches them - only to have scientists tell them that it will 100% certainly reach them as it is too late to stop that level of damage, like they'd been saying for decades.
It is the downside of a society that still predominantly bases its opinion off political leanings, rather than scientific fact, and where articles are written to agree with the readers so they'll read more, rather than to inform them. But hey. That's civilization as a whole.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

We're equating being in shape/being muscular with unhealthy masculinity now? I think you're missing the point of what I'm getting at. Women like egotistical men who don't care for them-OK! Stop right there! You're coming off as someone who took the song "Nice guys finish last" a little too seriously. Every women I know in real life is in a relationship with a man who CARES about them, because as it turns out people don't like being treated like crap. From my experience, the people who complain about women only wanting to be with jerks are Nice Guys TM, in other words guys who think they're nice guys but are actually pricks. You know, THESE people

https://feminainvicta.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/500x_pdd-nice-guy.jpg


Or think that meeting the standards of being a decent person entitles you romantic attraction. Or is it ok to start talking about how men always get women pregnant and leave them? Because your comments on women are on par with me saying all men fuck women, get them pregnant, and leave them. A massive generalization if nothing else.

I didn't bring up anything about women encouraging other women to be more feminine. Go back and respond to what I actually said.

Seems more like you were trying to deflect the conversation away from it's original course. It is a male problem. We aren't talking about it right now, you brought it up out of nowhere. We are talking about toxic masculinity because that's what the post you replied to was entirely about. Courts have nothing to do with toxic masculinity. How many times do I need to say it?

 

[Lightknight]

Stereotyping is fun.

And yet here you are, helping fulfill them.

and all you need to think to qualify as an MRA is that Feminism has overshot its goals in some areas in a way that harms men and actual equality

You didn?t contest my assertion that MRAs are oriented around anti-feminism; you just argued that antifeminism was justified.

No, I explained that the only qualifications to be part of the movement is to believe that some works of feminism have led to discrimination against men. This is in contrast with the image that the term "anti-feminism" evokes. It conveys the idea of a person who does not believe that women deserve equal rights. That is often times not the case in MRM and there are frequently people who would absolutely call themselves both feminists and MRAs because many of us define feminism as the pursuit of equality and any self proclaimed feminist groups seeking to appropriate the movement of feminism to obtain superiority over men rather than equality would be decidedly non-feminist by that definition. However, feminism is a broad term that includes both the women who diligently/correctly pursue equality where it is lacking and the women who would see men lick their boots of power. To criticize the more nefarious elements should not automatically classify us as anti-feminist as long as we support the original ideals of equality for women too. Yet it does.

In fact, you went further than I did! I merely asserted that in practice many MRAs end up being anti-feminist; you say they all are in principle, to the point that anti-feminism is their one unifying factor. It seems I was too cautious in my assessment.

I'm unsure why you're debating this point if you don't know the history of MRAs. Originally it was the Men's Liberation Movement which dissolved into two groups: The profeminism men's movement and the Men's Right Movement. The former specifically defines itself around feminist philosophies. The latter is a group which is not pro-feminism. Now, individual members of MRM may be very much in favor of the feminist ideal of equality, but the intent of the organization is to focus on men's rights rather than to focus on women's philosophies which is what a special interest group should be focused on.

You assume the distinction between anti-feminist and anti-woman is obvious. It?s not. One easily and often blends into or follows behind the other. For instance, criticisms of feminism?s possible excesses are often used to castigate not the excesses, but feminism as a whole.

Sounds like an issue of stereotyping if you decide to demonize a movement over having difficulty distinguishing between the two. You might as avoid all black people just because they get charged with a disproportionate number of violent crimes and is ergo difficult to tell a "regular black person" from a "criminal black person". Granted, ideological bigotry is certainly a far cry racial bigotry so please don't think that me using this analogy is equivocating the gravitas of your current line of stereotyping with that line of stereotyping. I'm just trying to show the similarities of rhetoric.

Then, of course, there is the question of whether or not feminism has, in fact, overshot.

It's philosophical and is a question. It isn't bigotry to question it. Whether or not it is fact is entirely irrelevant.

Finally, many of the people you (and I) would castigate as ?anti-equality? will probably contest that label and argue that they merely think that feminism has gone too far, like you. They just have different conceptions of what ?equal? and ?fair? are.

It's possible, but that has to be evaluated on a case by case basis rather than to construct and perpetuate a stereotype. For example, if women make the same amount of money for a job they perform as a man when experience and education are the same, then I would call the scenario equal. If a person of the same same experience and education gets paid more or is more likely to be hired just because of what genitals they hold then I would see this as unequal. There are more caveats to consider though. Like just because there are 50/50 male/female ratios in the world doesn't mean that the jobs should be hiring 50/50. It just means that the distribution of males and females should match the distribution of applications. So if 80% of applicants with the same qualifications are male then 80% of hired employees should be male and 20% should be female or vice versa.

So does there appear to be a clear gender bias in teaching and social work? Yeah, there does. But I don't know what the rate of application is by gender in those fields.

For example, why should women be hired at a 2:1 ratio in STEM related areas just because they're women? Why should single women under the age of 30 make more money than single men under the age of 30?

Citations? I don?t mean to condemn you for not including them, but I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Sure, though please understand that these are specific examples one might list and then be qualified as "anti-feminist" in the current definition of MRA

STEM faculty hiring's prefer female candidates 2:1 when credentials are the same: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract (keep in mind that in real life, the number of female applicants are incredibly low so this sort of preferential treatment isn't even close to be noticed unless you adjust for that. You also have people who have been in the STEM field since before we became mindful of women's absence in it and began to change our ways).

Single women up until the age of 30 make 8% more than their male peers in 147 of 150 major US cities: http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/

Note that in cities like Atlanta and Memphis that number is over 20% more than men in the same demographic. It's quite fascinating to see.

More and more studies are beginning to find that the gender gap isn't consistent across demographics and also isn't necessarily being caused by discrimination so much as so many other factors. Women do seem to pursue lower paying jobs that have a greater social benefit and do tend to prefer taking time off to care for kids of their own free will. People erroneously think men and women are the same and will always want and do the same things in aggregate. But we aren't. We are a sexually dimorphic species with differing average tendencies. We have a hell of a lot more in common than different, but I don't think it's healthy for us to ignore our differences and then try to leverage them in a manner that disproportionately benefits one gender over another.

Again, what I want is equality. I don't want women to have a higher vote if they show up in smaller numbers to an election (actually, women are the majority of voters by a significant margin), but I DO want to make sure that every single person who shows up counts for one vote. The latter is equality, the former is not. A woman should not be twice as likely than me to be hired for a position when we're equally qualified. But she sure as hell should have the same chance.

So you see how you can easily be a feminist in pursuit of equal equality for women while potentially disagreeing with certain movements founded within feminism?

What's more is any time anyone says anything which a feminist disagrees with, then it is automatically placed in the misogyny category even though it may just be a difference of opinion, difference of philosophy, or even just plain ol' ignorance on a topic.

But more recently we've instead begun to hear more and more of the fringe elements?counter to the original principles of pursuing equality.

the agenda of established groups are currently using their prior success to press ahead beyond equality into superiority.

For someone who doesn?t stereotyping and strawmen, you start appealing to both awfully quick.

Citing that we've begun to see more vocal fringe groups pursuing anti-equality goals isn't stereotyping or strawmanning. Stereotyping and strawmanning would be if I said that feminism is becoming more and more anti-equality because of these groups existence like you did with the MRA.

 

[Lightknight]

-
First world problems are, sadly, just as serious as third world problems to the people experiencing them. Its called the hedonic treadmill, and that kid in Africa starving to death is probably about as happy as the kid who doesn't really fit in at school, despite the vastly better lifestyle the latter kid has. -

That seems like a series of assumptions and generalizations (designed to ease the guilty conscience) that borders on delusion. I'm just going to assume that your description of a happy starving child is based in ignorance, and not psychopathic disregard for human suffering.

Or, how about they are making a correct evaluation of how issues appear to people regardless of their actual condition. People with great lives may easily perceive what few problems they have as though they were having just as bad a time as a starving child in Africa.

That is the theory he's presenting, anyways. Whether or not you and I agree with it. A kid getting neglected at school may still kill himself out of sadness whereas a kid starving in Africa may fight to survive. That would indicate an unusual non-causative relationship between degree of harm actually experience and appreciation of life. Weird to consider.

 

[happyninja42]

https://feminainvicta.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/500x_pdd-nice-guy.jpg

Funny that you link that image, as I recall in highschool, being the guy that all the girls bitched to about their shitty boyfriends, and frequently heard the "I just want a nice guy!" to which I'd respond "Well, how about we go out then?" and they would respond with "Oh, you're TOO nice." Which always puzzled me. I jokingly responded with "What, so if I slapped you in the face and called you a *****/whore, would that reduce my niceness factor enough to date?" They never had a good answer for that. xD

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I assume it's not done much here because there would be more qualifying and defending going on than there would be worthwhile conversation... Just a guess.

Hi, I'm Panda. I am a man. Been a male my whole life, and a man a little less time... I think that's fairly normal, I suspect many could relate. I think it could be a mistake to think that men discussing men's issues would look exactly like women doing the same. As far as my experience goes, men discussing men's issues is basically a constant, it's just not overt... Partly because men don't like to open up, partly because there is hostility to the notion of "men's problems", but also because they're not expecting people to care when they do. I think it would be unfair to assume that this feeling was arrived at arbitrarily.

What I see is a whole lot of talk in hushed tones. Advice from older men, little bits in conversation between friends... A whole load of seeking guidance online, and not necessarily even in forums because maybe even that is too public. I don't know how familiar everyone is with the MGTOW thing, but there are a number of men who run youtube channels that people adore. These men are contacted constantly by other(usually younger) men seeking guidance, and they offer it. I think this might be what men discussing men's issues looks like, at least in it's infancy.

I don't know where I'm going with this really. I just read "they don't seem to actually care" in the OP and I thought it was pretty arrogant and ignorant. I think men care(at least the more self aware ones), I'm not sure they expect others to...

 

[1981]

No, I'm sorry, but no matter how much you'd like to have a discussion based on a fallacy, it's not a real discussion. What you're looking for is an echo chamber, and that's why you're avoiding facts in favor of stories.

What is the fallacy in this case?

 

[Dazzle Novak]

https://feminainvicta.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/500x_pdd-nice-guy.jpg

Funny that you link that image, as I recall in highschool, being the guy that all the girls bitched to about their shitty boyfriends, and frequently heard the "I just want a nice guy!" to which I'd respond "Well, how about we go out then?" and they would respond with "Oh, you're TOO nice." Which always puzzled me. I jokingly responded with "What, so if I slapped you in the face and called you a *****/whore, would that reduce my niceness factor enough to date?" They never had a good answer for that one XD

I have to ask: if you were put into this situation multiple times as you claim, isn't it possible you were the one being disingenuous about his wants and intentions? It seems like you presented yourself as a friend while waiting to feed on the carcasses of their dying relationships like some romantically-opportunistic vulture.

The way you frame the story, you come off as neither nice nor particularly date-worthy, so I don't see a valid source for the self-righteous scorn. Never mind that you see that meme and think all women are the problem. Every other male who has a girlfriend must be a secret jerk, Alpha, rich, etc. and you're the sole "normal" guy in this game of love.

 

[happyninja42]

snip

snip

I have to ask: if you were put into this situation multiple times as you claim, isn't it possible you were the one being disingenuous about his wants and intentions? It seems like you presented yourself as a friend while waiting to feed on the carcasses of their dying relationships like some romatically-opportunistic vulture.

The way you frame the story, you come off as neither nice nor particularly date-worthy.

....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Omg thanks, that's really funny. Wooo, you crack me up.

I was giving you what is called a condensed version of the story. These were girls I had known for years, and had been friends with for years. I was the guy they always came to to talk about problems with, because I am a nice guy. That's why they felt comfortable talking to me about their relationship problems. Your assumption that I am some kind of relationship vulture is, while visually amusing, completely ludicrous, and says a lot about how you project preconceived notions about other people. It's cute. And yes, I am being sarcastic at you, considering the tone of your response to me, accusing me of being a relationship parasite and vulture, based solely off a 1 paragraph comment from me.

I would listen to them talk about their problems, of whatever kind, for years, and I would give them what advice I had on the subjects. They sought me out for advice and counsel, not the other way around. Some of them, I happened to have an attraction to. And when they are sitting there, single because of the asshole boyfriend they've been bitching at me about for weeks, I would sometimes ask them out. Because hey why not, they're single, we get along just fine, and they state they are tired of asshole boyfriends, so I might as well ask. Sometimes the above comment of "too nice" would be their response. My reply would be simply to illustrate how hypocritical their statement was, in regards to what they said they wanted out of a relationship.

If you still want to say I'm a *snickers* romantic vulture, feeding off the carcasses of their relationship, then go ahead, because honestly, I really don't give a fuck what you think of me.

 

[1981]

I would listen to them talk about their problems, of whatever kind, for years, and I would give them what advice I had on the subjects. [...]

You were friendzoned, bro.

 

[jklinders]

I get you erttheking.


I find it pretty frustrating that these issues only come up when someone is attempting to win the oppression Olympics. A lot of this shit, if not all of it is bad in it's own right. Spousal abuse for example against males is fairly common but getting funding for a shelter for men is nearly impossible in this country and nearly impossible to talk about without bringing up feminism (guys like the OP is asking please do not drag drag feminism into this point, I'll simply dismiss and disregard it).

I don't quite have the contempt for gender roles you have ert, but I understand where you are coming from in how those roles have been distorted. then again, I have seen how one can be isolated by not acting the role. Frankly I have in the past found that to be a useful yardstick on who is worth my time. If someone is acting the ass just because I am not always trying to get a piece i shut them down and then out until they grow the fuck up. I also don't see it quite as often, I'm a little older now and most of the folks I talk to have no points to win anymore as they are married or at least mature. I do vaguely remember how it was to be in my 20s and hold my peers in contempt for acting far more macho than they are to put up a front though.

i've worked hard within myself to take a more humanistic and egalitarian view of things and try to see this shit as a human rather than a gender problem. That brings up it's own challenges but ultimately will lead to a better place if the two genders are not constantly crying about who has it worse. It's all our problem when we are doing this backbiting BS not just one or the other.

 

[Dazzle Novak]

snip

snip

I have to ask: if you were put into this situation multiple times as you claim, isn't it possible you were the one being disingenuous about his wants and intentions? It seems like you presented yourself as a friend while waiting to feed on the carcasses of their dying relationships like some romatically-opportunistic vulture.

The way you frame the story, you come off as neither nice nor particularly date-worthy.

....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Omg thanks, that's really funny. Wooo, you crack me up.

I was giving you what is called a condensed version of the story. These were girls I had known for years, and had been friends with for years. I was the guy they always came to to talk about problems with, because I am a nice guy. That's why they felt comfortable talking to me about their relationship problems. Your assumption that I am some kind of relationship vulture is, while visually amusing, completely ludicrous, and says a lot about how you project preconceived notions about other people. It's cute. And yes, I am being sarcastic at you, considering the tone of your response to me, accusing me of being a relationship parasite and vulture, based solely off a 1 paragraph comment from me.

I would listen to them talk about their problems, of whatever kind, for years, and I would give them what advice I had on the subjects. They sought me out for advice and counsel, not the other way around. Some of them, I happened to have an attraction to. And when they are sitting there, single because of the asshole boyfriend they've been bitching at me about for weeks, I would sometimes ask them out. Because hey why not, they're single, we get along just fine, and they state they are tired of asshole boyfriends, so I might as well ask. Sometimes the above comment of "too nice" would be their response. My reply would be simply to illustrate how hypocritical their statement was, in regards to what they said they wanted out of a relationship.

If you still want to say I'm a *snickers* romantic vulture, feeding off the carcasses of their relationship, then go ahead, because honestly, I really don't give a fuck what you think of me.

That... Honestly sounds worse than what I presumed out of hand. None of it belies my point and some enhances it.

Edit: I will apologize for calling you a vulture (figurative or otherwise). It was presumptuous and inflammatory and I let my tone get away from me. That said:

So basically, you're bitter because doing what friends do didn't net you the pussy you expected. Call me some kind of magician, but I can be friends with somebody without wanting to stick parts of myself in them. Because let's be honest: sex is the dividing line between friend and girlfriend in this scenario. You weren't hoping to build a life together in high school and intimacy can be a part of platonic friendship so... Yeah. The problem, I guess, isn't that you made ill-advised passes at multiple friends ( though really, think about that a second); it's that you can't empathize with the awkward position you put them in. They weren't attracted to you. If they were, you'd know.

You'd rather paint supposed "friends" as flighty, unsympathetic hypocrites than give them the benefit of the doubt or puncture the notion you're so irresistibly nice. This carries over to my suspicion that what you call "asshole boyfriend behavior" is common relationship strife filtered through an aggrieved ex. Not all of it: some is asshole behavior as we're all wont to indulge. Some may be genuine abusive dickhead moves. My point is I don't think you'd be the ideal supreme gentlemen boyfriend you fancy.

Lastly, how hysterical, defensive and deeply-offended you are by the supposedly off-base allegation of some internet stranger speaks volumes about you: either I hit a nerve or you're pathologically insecure. Hell, why can't it be both? Your eagerness to self-identify as "nice" (especially for deeds as banal and expected as listening to a friend) paints a picture of you I feel is pretty obvious.

 

[Lightknight]

-
First world problems are, sadly, just as serious as third world problems to the people experiencing them. Its called the hedonic treadmill, and that kid in Africa starving to death is probably about as happy as the kid who doesn't really fit in at school, despite the vastly better lifestyle the latter kid has. -

That seems like a series of assumptions and generalizations (designed to ease the guilty conscience) that borders on delusion. I'm just going to assume that your description of a happy starving child is based in ignorance, and not psychopathic disregard for human suffering.

Or, how about they are making a correct evaluation of how issues appear to people regardless of their actual condition. People with great lives may easily perceive what few problems they have as though they were having just as bad a time as a starving child in Africa.

That is the theory he's presenting, anyways. Whether or not you and I agree with it. A kid getting neglected at school may still kill himself out of sadness whereas a kid starving in Africa may fight to survive. That would indicate an unusual non-causative relationship between degree of harm actually experience and appreciation of life. Weird to consider.

He's not presenting a theory, he's presenting salve for guilt in the form of disorganized opinion. Stretching that out for a paragraph or two didn't change that in your hands either.

The hedonic treadmill is a fairly well observed human tendency. Sorry if you were unaware of it before interjecting a gut reaction to what the poster said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

It is a valid theory and one the psychological community is very much currently interested in. The main thing we want to study given this perceived condition is what kind of things are outliers, things that really do impact the longterm stability of happiness.

I know it sounds shocking when first heard, but the very very poor can express the same levels of happiness as the very wealthy if not sometimes more.

 

[jklinders]

I get you erttheking.


I find it pretty frustrating that these issues only come up when someone is attempting to win the oppression Olympics. A lot of this shit, if not all of it is bad in it's own right. Spousal abuse for example against males is fairly common but getting funding for a shelter for men is nearly impossible in this country and nearly impossible to talk about without bringing up feminism (guys like the OP is asking please do not drag drag feminism into this point, I'll simply dismiss and disregard it).

I don't quite have the contempt for gender roles you have ert, but I understand where you are coming from in how those roles have been distorted. then again, I have seen how one can be isolated by not acting the role. Frankly I have in the past found that to be a useful yardstick on who is worth my time. If someone is acting the ass just because I am not always trying to get a piece i shut them down and then out until they grow the fuck up. I also don't see it quite as often, I'm a little older now and most of the folks I talk to have no points to win anymore as they are married or at least mature. I do vaguely remember how it was to be in my 20s and hold my peers in contempt for acting far more macho than they are to put up a front though.

i've worked hard within myself to take a more humanistic and egalitarian view of things and try to see this shit as a human rather than a gender problem. That brings up it's own challenges but ultimately will lead to a better place if the two genders are not constantly crying about who has it worse. It's all our problem when we are doing this backbiting BS not just one or the other.

People have cynically realized that "White Power" isn't as appealing these days as "White Pride". It's not as appealing to mount a race war, as to defend yourself against one that's supposedly already underway. From those extreme roots, that ideology simply spread outward and now assumed victimhood is SOP for anyone and everyone. It's a kind of intellectual and social chaff, acting as spoilers for the whole discussion.

Care to explain where you are coming from here? Frankly I have no idea if you are talking to me or quoted me by accident. It also sounds a little like you are accusing me of trying to derail the thread. you have no foundation for that as i was replying specifically to the OP and not whatever convoluted mutated discussion that took place since.

 

[jklinders]

I get you erttheking.


I find it pretty frustrating that these issues only come up when someone is attempting to win the oppression Olympics. A lot of this shit, if not all of it is bad in it's own right. Spousal abuse for example against males is fairly common but getting funding for a shelter for men is nearly impossible in this country and nearly impossible to talk about without bringing up feminism (guys like the OP is asking please do not drag drag feminism into this point, I'll simply dismiss and disregard it).

I don't quite have the contempt for gender roles you have ert, but I understand where you are coming from in how those roles have been distorted. then again, I have seen how one can be isolated by not acting the role. Frankly I have in the past found that to be a useful yardstick on who is worth my time. If someone is acting the ass just because I am not always trying to get a piece i shut them down and then out until they grow the fuck up. I also don't see it quite as often, I'm a little older now and most of the folks I talk to have no points to win anymore as they are married or at least mature. I do vaguely remember how it was to be in my 20s and hold my peers in contempt for acting far more macho than they are to put up a front though.

i've worked hard within myself to take a more humanistic and egalitarian view of things and try to see this shit as a human rather than a gender problem. That brings up it's own challenges but ultimately will lead to a better place if the two genders are not constantly crying about who has it worse. It's all our problem when we are doing this backbiting BS not just one or the other.

People have cynically realized that "White Power" isn't as appealing these days as "White Pride". It's not as appealing to mount a race war, as to defend yourself against one that's supposedly already underway. From those extreme roots, that ideology simply spread outward and now assumed victimhood is SOP for anyone and everyone. It's a kind of intellectual and social chaff, acting as spoilers for the whole discussion.

Care to explain where you are coming from here? Frankly I have no idea if you are talking to me or quoted me by accident. It also sounds a little like you are accusing me of trying to derail the thread. you have no foundation for that as i was replying specifically to the OP and not whatever convoluted mutated discussion that took place since.

I'm agreeing with your statement, "I find it pretty frustrating that these issues only come up when someone is attempting to win the oppression Olympics." I'm explaining how that kind of behavior has come to be the norm for our whole society, and its origins in extreme movements' attempts to re brand themselves. People have figured out that it's easier to present yourself as a victim and then hypocritically victimize people, than actually selling yourself honestly. I was using one early example of that in the turn of "White Power" philosophy from the need to dominate other races, into a need to defend the "white race" against the aggression of other races.

I think the only people who are totally honest about their lack of victim status, and are just openly hateful would be the Westboro Baptist Church. They're too fucking crazy to market themselves.

thanks for clearing that up. On a first glance reading, and I still cannot parse it from your original post it looked like you were alluding that behavior to me in my wish to pursue humanism over feminism or MRAism. I'm glad i did not end up needing to go (politely and within forum rules) apeshit over that as I am currently having a good day.

Peace.

 

[Karadalis]

The same reason that the lack of shelters for homeless or battered men is brought up by people who have never done anything about it, like opening a shelter. The kind of people who complain online or on a college campus on any side of this debate, aren't the people who actually solve problems at that time.

Slacktivism ladies and gentlemen, it's that simple.

The one woman who tried to open shelter for battered men, who incidently also was the one who opened the first shelters for women in the us of a had her dog killed by feminists and had her family and herselfe terrorized by them so much that she had to leave her home behind and move to another location

http://imgur.com/gallery/PDcXuvy

And people wonder why no one talks about mens problems or why no one speaks up for men... because each time someone who simply wants to discuss mens problems comes along hes shut down by radical feminists and activists. Go ahead and even try to have an honest debate about men issues in the modern world in a public place.

Or have you forgotten that you cant be sexist against men?

 

[Lightknight]

The same reason that the lack of shelters for homeless or battered men is brought up by people who have never done anything about it, like opening a shelter. The kind of people who complain online or on a college campus on any side of this debate, aren't the people who actually solve problems at that time.

Slacktivism ladies and gentlemen, it's that simple.

The one woman who tried to open shelter for battered men, who incidently also was the one who opened the first shelters for women in the us of a had her dog killed by feminists and had her family and herselfe terrorized by them so much that she had to leave her home behind and move to another location

http://imgur.com/gallery/PDcXuvy

And people wonder why no one talks about mens problems or why no one speaks up for men... because each time someone who simply wants to discuss mens problems comes along hes shut down by radical feminists and activists. Go ahead and even try to have an honest debate about men issues in the modern world in a public place.

Or have you forgotten that you cant be sexist against men?

Not to mention that being unwilling to upset my own life to pursue fixing a problem that is not personally relevant doesn't mean we can't bring it up as a problem given more recent data showing comparable victimization rates of males in domestic abuse (although women are far more likely to suffer injuries). That would be as silly as a police officer dismissing a rape victim's request for them to arrest the offender because the rape victim never joined the police force and arrested any rapists... it just doesn't follow that you can't describe a problem unless you are an active force to resolve it.

 

[Mister K]

Well, I'll tell why from MY personal perspective concerning MY own view of MYSELF and people around ME. We cool? Cool.

I personally don't talk about my problems because I DO NOT WANT TO. As simple as that. It is a lot more comfortable for me to either punch a wall or curse under my breath when I have problem and then move on. I do not want to tell other people about how I feel, I do not want to burden them because they seem to have problems of their own. Yes, I do reply with my personal opinion on topics that concern me and my ladyfriend (such as the fact that we both can't find good jobs), but that is it. I, however, am always willing to listen for the reasons said in the second part of my post.

As for my experience with other people, I've noticed that the majority of women are mostly incapable of holding their emotions inside. They NEED to vent out. Why am I sayng this? Two reasons. First, my mother, whenever something bad is happeng, tends to scream towards me. Problem with my father (which most of the time she caused)? Scream at me. Something bad at work? Scream at me. I fucked up? Scream at me (OK, this one I, kiiiind of deserved). I quickly learned that a) the best tactic is to shut up and let her get tired and b) being literally assaulted in an agressive form by other persons problems creates a huge burden for a listener.
Second experience is, well, with other women in general. No matter how cheerful, or tough, or smart those women, girls, young ladies were and are, they need to sometimes tell someone about what they feel, be it something good or bad. I mean, with guys, the worst you'll hear is "Shit is fucked because so and so" and that is it, but women need to tell the whole thing and express themselves fully.
From those experiences I've made 2 conclusions: 1. Burdening other person with your problems in an agressive manner is, at the very least, not healthy for them and whenever I have a huge ammount of problems which I collected for the last few weeks I EXPLODE in this or that way, so I try to avoid doing it; 2. I am a good listener, people (majority of which are women) need someone to tell about their problems, so I'll listen.

To conclude, IMO man simply need to release their frustration (in a worst case scenario) and then move on. We do not feel the need to tell others about our problems, unless it is something we can't deal with on our own. Like health issues, when there is an actual need to visit a specialist.