Evidence has shown that guys are actually really good at things we happen to find meaningful and prestigious, whereas girls are only good at meaningless, frivolous things. Only people who think testosterone literally doesn’t exist would doubt this very scientific conclusion.
Sex routinely judged as mates by earning power, social status, seek jobs with high earning power, prestige, work greater hours. Sex that has tendency to select opposite sex based on earning power and social status baffled.
“but how will I ever be able to get laid if modern culture frowns upon me getting coworkers drunk and making out with them against their mumbled protestations?? it’s not like my wife is gonna sleep with me lol”
I have not actually worked out how modern culture proposes people are meant to get laid.
I mean, people obviously seem to be doing it, but there appears to be no acceptable strategy.
You ignore the recommendations, and prove how manly you are by taking on the risk anyway, getting shut down viciously if you’re too low-status.
The problem is that any permissible channel will be FLOODED due to the mismatch between the demand for sex from women and demand for sex from men, at least at the noisiest age pools.
Secondly, straight women (generally, on average) do not want to initiate beyond the barest hints, ones that are plausibly deniable if she turns out not to be wanted by that particular guy, leaving her sense of being desirable intact.
What is going to change this is early Transhumanism, as it’s going to alter the sex ratio and potentially result in an increase in bisexuality.
I mean, in practice I used a dating website, which implicitly includes the idea that everyone there for dating is there for dating, and specifies their orientation, so if you don’t have “short/long-term dating” and so on your profile, no fuck for you,
but I don’t necessarily match the patterns of other people, so this may not be actionable advice.
Anyhow, to add on to this, revealing you find someone hot when you’re attempting to extract resources or in a high-stakes …relationship negotiation? …hurts your bargaining position.
At least, you can still get away with pretending that you have to be won over (and showered in all the resources that “winning over”) requires, so long as there are more incoming proposals than outgoing ones, such that the norm is they have to approach you if they find you hot.
As the sex ratio changes, this becomes less and less feasible.
Since I expect a decent-sized chunk of people (3-5%) to “exit” from being male (as we know it) once the technology improves, that throws the bargaining out of whack, as does bisexuality, which means you’re competing with more people for a higher virtual gender ratio… or something. Naturally, once being a sex is more voluntary, what being that sex means changes as well.
They can’t undo Toxic Masculinity, because they don’t understand Masculinity, and they don’t want to.
…because that would mean understanding things about themselves that they don’t want to understand, either.
@mitigatedchaos how about this sci-fi take on gendpol:
“Men are indeed worse than women in various ways, more antisocial, violent etc…
And we have egg-combining technology so we can make a Lesbian Utopia…
HOWEVER, we should still keep the population at approximately 50:50… For the long-term psychological benefits of romantic interaction, given most women are straight.”
You say this, but I already once did a fake nation writeup where they created a single-sex and it turned out terrible - not because they weren’t gay enough, but rather, because they embraced the worst aspects of both masculinity and femininity simultaneously. (And also, they would have been less bad off if they had just a few teaspoons of Feminism, but that wasn’t going to happen, for Reasons.)
http://sharkodactyl.tumblr.com/post/165166952339
totally, obnoxiously, horribly uncharitable:
can i want to fuck the monster girls tho
because i’m like them and they’re like me and we both need someone
also like
“every kind of woman is sexualized”
no, they really aren’t. and the insistence that they are is very typical of a certain kind of abled feminism. the kind that insists that all women are drowning in catcalls when some women would give their left tit to be considered someone’s, anyone’s, lust object.
regular reminder that the most woke way to mock a man is to imply that sexual virility is the key to male worth; oh yeah and all men are straight
Patriarchal attitudes are the most feminist thing possible
Bad Trad Chad: You see, women are weak and helpless creatures at the mercy of strong, powerful men, who hold all agency and make all decisions.
Dumb Internet Feminists: Yes, I agree, it is definitionally impossible for women to have power.
i still think it’s darkly hilarious that so many men heard women say ‘i want a man that’s sensitive’ and heard it as ‘i, a man, should be extremely sensitive about my feelings and desires, that is what women want, they want to be kept constantly walking on eggshells around my hairtrigger emotional state,’ instead of ‘ohhh women want partners who are sensitive to THEIR feelings and desires’.
like. this isn’t that hard. practice emotional reciprocity with women. listen to and sympathize with them. it will make your life way better than just demanding that people constantly cater to you and then not giving anyone anything back.
Like, “pay attention to my girlfriend’s emotions, be sensitive to my girlfriend’s emotions, but otherwise be a stone-faced, indestructible rock golem of strength” is the expectation.
And when straight women who are upset about things like in your post say they want a “sensitive guy,” it’s phrased in ways like “I want a guy who knows it’s okay to cry.”
Like, that pretty clearly means in touch with his own emotions.
Straight guys expect that if they are emotional in ways other than validating the emotions of their girlfriends, women will break up with them.
You tagged this “bangs pots and pans in a masculine manner” so I’m going to assume you’re male. You should really know better than this, if you’re not just doing rah rah performative wokeness.
Walking on eggshells is never fun, but I always get the sense from these conversations that it’s always “how dare women have to walk on eggshells? What, lots of straight men already had to walk on eggshells? Who cares about them??”
And in turn, I can’t see it anything other than yet another gender war munition that men should just ignore.
“Of course,” said the moderate, as the ethnic violence increased in the country and multi-generational child sex trafficking rings set up in the cities, “some may die, but isn’t our vision of a tolerant and diverse society worth it?”
: /
I know, this is very deeply uncharitable of me. Something about this latest attack has me on edge. I think it’s that I see a path from here to ethnic tension criticality in England, which, with the previous attacks being a cycle of terrorism vs military campaigns, I didn’t.
I feel like you could make a point in a bias/perspective class by ahead of time getting the unfamiliar names down phonetically so that on your first day taking attendance you could make a show by pronouncing their names correctly but mispronouncing all the names like “John Smith”, “Fred Williams” or “Susan McKenzie”.
Just like in a “Hey class there are subtle little shitty things like this that just exist for some people and if I didn’t go out of my way to do this chances are like half of you would never experience it once even though it’s happening like four times a day to everyone else”
“The very presence of foreign immigrants is changing your culture for the worse, Trumpian immigration restrictionism is in your interest”
@rendakuenthusiast Where the fuck are you getting that? White chicks are able to come with names like Zarowski or Tegan or Kanada or whatever.
I’ll tell you where he’s getting it - this kind of exercise implies that the immigrants would would not have to deal with those terrible, horrible incorrect name pronunciations if the immigrants weren’t in the country, and that the students wouldn’t be experiencing this kind of bias exercise designed to tell them that they’re bad people for not knowing more than a miniscule fraction of the hundreds (if not thousands?) of languages on Earth.
People in the nations of origins of the immigrants may well not pronounce their names right, either. It hits them with a unidirectional moral weight, unless handled very carefully.
…and it won’t be handled carefully, because SJ is a culture weapon.
People can sense the political intent on an intuitive level - and it is political.
Broke: Lowering immigration is racist because immigrants are predominantly non-white, and therefore any opposition to immigration necessarily stems from white supremacist racism.
Woke: Not lowering immigration is racist, because bringing in better unskilled or low-skilled employees disproportionately hurts those in our society who are the worst off in terms of health, education, family structure, and contact with the criminal justice system, and that is very much skewed, racially, in our country. Support for mass immigration is just white people showing off how tolerant they are while pushing off the costs on other groups.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
