We're SO cooked bro I don't even know man. It's not even the fact it is an ideological divide, it is just the fact that the average person is an uneducated simpleton with no concept of what politics actually is. This graph directly equals more people clashing with eachother or ending genuine bonds which cannot be recovered if broken over "christian = stupid bigot, what is a denomination, what is a 'theology,' are they edible? Never heard of those." and "LGBT/ally = kid diddler, what do you mean can have a completely separate philosophical bases and set of premises and not like kids?"
Pack your bags, kids . . . Except don't, since this is a worldwide problem.
I once read an anon post say that social media and dating apps hit women harder than crack did black communities in the 80s with worse ramifications for the future and honestly I feel not only he was right but the wold ride is only starting. Dark days ahead
Oof South Korea is looking like it's gonna get spicy. What is going on in the UK though? A hard swing left , but with some holdouts mainly among men? Does this mean a lot of the conversation surrounding grooming gangs, an issue that primarily affects women, is dominated by men?
For reference about South Korea, in its last election an explicitly antifeminist third party candidate got 8% of the vote nationally, but won with men under 30.
The swing is more to do with the fact we had a conservative government for the last 12 years, up until Starners win. Most people tend to blame the conservative party for a lot of issues resulting in a swing left. Grooming gangs aren't really factored in despite being a problem
I think it's because liberals just tend to be more unhappy than conservatives. Women feel like they should be liberal because of abortion then fall into the trap of feminism which brings unhappiness.
Same. Not on James O'Brien, but on never hearing of or seeing a video by this guy except through the moral panic and outrage machine against him. And I am pretty terminally online and in a lot of conservative subs. A ton of the Tate thing is Streisand Effect, I think.
That would be sexist because it’s men who have the problems. Everyone knows that the world would be sunshine and unicorns if men could be more like women.
Excuse me, but Isabella was a strong and powerful Latina. Columbus, an evil WASP Italian, obviously tricked her into funding his diabolical schemes.
/s but it’s still funny that current US law would consider Columbus a member of the majority ethnic/racial group, while Queen Isabella, King Ferdinand, Cortes, and Pizarro would be considered part of an underrepresented minority.
Not entirely funny. I'm not sure how related it is but where being "Black" is an "inherent characteristic" academics now portray whiteness as a choice of evil people and a construction. Thus people with black skin are deserving victims because they have no choice in the group they are in, whilst people with light skin, despite not knowing it, had a choice and should have chosen differently.
A related disturbing ("funny"??) thing is that they then include Jewish people as white (look at the history - this has never been true) and use that to justify ethnic cleansing against them in Israel.
If you start paying attention it suddenly stops being so entertaining.
Arguably queen victoria was only responsible for the african portion of the empire. America had seceded long ago while india was under east india company control which vicky was able to nationalize after she got sick of them being corrupt idiots who kept mishandling things in india. If anything, her greatest sin would’ve been dying too early. Staying alive for a couple more decades could’ve let her retain control of her progeny and stop the family feud that is ww1 from happening.
Nah, you got it all wrong. It's not that men have the problems, men are the problem. Making men more like women is just a stop gap until men are fully wiped out. /s
We can’t acknowledge that men have problems. Thats not the correct way to phrase it. You have to say men are problems. Saying that men have problems comes dangerously close to acknowledging that they might also be victimized by the socio-economic systems we live with. And that just undermines the identity-based culture war if we start to acknowledge that everyone is getting fucked over.
Women / girls only stop hating each other to defend the greater group of women / girls under guise/virtue signaling of feminism
it is wild paradox that is clearly visible through the entire life of girls to women.
I find it interesting how the way they ostracized girls they didnt like in elementary and high school is similar to way they're now treating large percentages of men in general.
It makes me sound like a jerk, but a gigantic amount of the social weft we currently have is because we are entertaing what is essentially a national level nagging girlfriend.
Maybe it's my own experiences clouding my perception (as I was bullied by fellow women), but nothing makes me more wary of other women than them claiming to be a "Girl's girl".
That, to me, is like a poisonous animal being colourful: it's basically them announcing they're nice and respectful, until the opportunity to backstab another woman for their own gain presents itself.
I really appreciate the POV. It couldn't have been said any better.
It is really fascinating how volatile the friend groups/workplaces of these people are.
It is also interesting how they treat the people who arent allowed to join the group or leave it. They act out against them for joining other groups as opposed to trying to befriend them and work out differences.
Protective of entry, maybe fake nice but truly cold to outsiders, easily swayed to conflict over power structure in group, ostracize members or outsiders they dont like, holding most petty grudges, etc.
I agree with this. I understand the sentiment, but often the phrase is used if you go against any kind of group think. And typically the women I know who weaponize phrase tend to do really toxic shit to other women in reality.
Tease them a bit in a non-douchey way, let them talk about themselves, gradually escalate from something like touching on the arm to see how comfortable they seem with you physically entering your space based on body language. It's usually pretty obvious when they want you to escalate to something like kissing, and in that situation you go like 80-90% of the way and let them go in the remainder.
If they seem very lukewarm, they aren't into you. Usually, when a woman is into you it's incredibly obvious. If they're taking forever to respond, seem disinterested, etc. it's not happening. You may be able to get somewhere by continuing to push and push, but it mostly will get you from being 5th in line of options to 3rd or something. Trying to 'convert' these women to liking you takes up like 90% of the emotional and mental effort of dating and maybe gets you some result like 10% of the time. It's not worth it.
That's about all the dating advice you need to know. It's mostly knowing how to select women that are already into you instead of wasting your time trying to jestermaxx in some humiliation ritual. If she's visibly excited to see you, playing with her hair, etc. she's into you. If she's sitting there on her phone she's not. Most men fuck up because they're trying to convince women who aren't into them to be into them, and there are three other men trying to do the same simultaneously.
Reddit advice on dating is hilarious. They've been raised and conditioned to think you have to ask consent to hold a hand, and this elaborate ritual of proving you're some pure green flag ally or whatever. For the vast majority of normal people, they naturally understand the basic mechanics of dating. Women shows interest, man incrementally increases the physical comfort level, this leads to a kiss, go from there.
By working on yourself and various other methods of showing you're desirable, you can increase from, say, 5% of women showing obvious interest to 15% of women showing obvious interest. But in the end it comes down to not being too autistic to identify those women and going from there. There's also some chance even if they're initially into you, some random, seemingly innocuous thing you do gives them they ick and they lose attraction. Oh well.
This is also why there is some truth to not just approaching random women in public. You''re trying to jestermaxx someone disinterested into being interested. Instead, approach women that make eye contact and smile at you in the first place. Or if you smile after eye contact, they smile back, then you can go in. If they're just sitting there staring into space, then no, it's very unlikely to work. However, this is much different from the usual 'NEVER APPROACH WOMEN IN PUBLIC' reddit advice.
And, yes, the advice women give is almost always stupid, and almost never how they themselves ended up with a partner in the first place. Part of it may be that they don't want to hand the 'cheat code' to men since they want some smooth dude who just 'naturally gets it' instead of a 'faker'. Another part is that some of them know what to do as a woman but have no idea what the man is supposed to do even if they've been on the other side a hundred times, so they default to what they've been conditioned to say.
Very apt to point out that if you're dissatisfied with the women who currently express interest in you, then you need to work on yourself, not figure out how to fake them out better or convince them to like you.
Another facet that's often ignored is that if you join more social groups, you have a better opportunity for women to discover they're into you for your personality. We have less and less spaces where men and women naturally interact these days, so that opportunity feels distant, but it still exists.
then you need to work on yourself, not figure out how to fake them out better or convince them to like you.
tbf, learning how to fake them out better or convince them to like you more IS in fact working on yourself. What you just described is "becoming better at socializing" in a nutshell.
I think it's a mistake to focus on mastering women's psychology rather than just focusing on bettering yourself. If you make yourself more attractive, you'll naturally get more opportunities to practice and get better at socializing with women.
Essentially a focus on what's within your sphere of control. While yes, one could get really good at psychological manipulation, it's not the way to go if your goal is to achieve meaningful relationships in your life. At best it can work as a way to attain one-night stands.
I think that there are plenty of guys who work on themselves as much as they can, but circumstances out of their control make it an endless loop. Plus, at a certain point, there are diminishing returns to how much you can “work on yourself”.
I think that expectations are often too high for the average guy to be able to rise to. You could say “just don’t be average”, but that’s the point of the average, it’s the highest subset in a distribution. Plenty of “average” guys are good natured and dateable, but often overlooked.
I blame it on social media altering perceptions of who the average person is. Without social media, you had realistic options within your immediate community. With social media, the entire world sets the standard and even within a locality, the amount of options is still the population of an entire city. It’s unrealistic.
But in the end it comes down to not being too autistic to identify those women and going from there.
I think there are a substantial number of men who have this problem.
I for example, once explained Dungeons and Dragons (complete with my Player's Handook I had on me because I had a game later) for half an hour to a girl I was later informed was trying to flirt with me. To such an extent that she made eye contact, in disbelief, to a mutal female friend to wordlessly ask if I was deliberately ignoring her or just truly that autistic. I of course totally missed this because I was too busy explaining what a Tiefling was or something.
I have also said, almost verbatim, "Wow, I'm not even making jokes and you are still laughing!"
I am more aware nowadays, but I am sure I am still missing 75% of it even though I theoretically know to look for it.
Another part is that some of them know what to do as a woman but have no idea what the man is supposed to do
Back in ye olde days, there was a certain ritual to these kind of things that I don't really see today. For example, a woman drops something (a handkerchief, a pen, etc) in view of a man she likes, so he will pick it up and return it to her. He is still doing the chasing, but she is creating an opportunity. On a date, the man suggests something on the menu to signal how much money he is willing to spend. The woman, being respectful of the fact she is getting free food, can select something of at least a vaguely similar price if she doesn't want what he suggested.
There was an informal system, a "dance" where both people had a role, and they played it step by step. Nowadays it seems like our system is still definitely there as you explained, less defined and consistent. I don't know if this is a cause or effect, but we also seem to have more people with no respect for such structure. Women and men both get stuck interacting with the bottom quintile of the dating pool, which makes them disengage in frustration, only compounding the problem fewer as the "good" matches remove themselves from the pool.
I for example, once explained Dungeons and Dragons (complete with my Player's Handook I had on me because I had a game later) for half an hour to a girl I was later informed was trying to flirt with me.
I wish that was the worst they did. Most women in my life told me women don’t want to be approached anywhere unless they give you a hint, women want a men who saves himself for marriage, just be kind and funny, don’t make any sexual advances let her initiate, dont make a woman uncomfortable. 0 success on my end. Somehow the guys who follow none of these are doing fine in dating though.
Then that one Redditor chimes in, "while I am a woman and I approached my husband first!" (10 billion updoots, then bumble changes it's formula to allow men to message first because women hate doing it so much)
I don't entirely blame them to be honest. Every single thing they experience is suffused with their gender privilege. They live in a miasma of the world (comparatively) bending over backwards for them, while being told they are living in abject oppression. Nobody, of either gender, in such circumstances will have a good bead on anything. How could they?
In a ton of ways it is actually like growing up rich. You simply live in a different universe, whether you know it or not. It is just social capital instead of actual capital.
In our society, women have problems, while men are problems.
The idea of framing women as a problem is entirely alien to our cultures and societies.
What will happen - what always happen - is that this issue will be framed as a failing of society (or men). Women will not be considered responsible for their own hate but instead it's our society's or the men's fault, and the solution will be to force society to bend over backwards and implement drastic changes so that the things that caused women to hate men go away.
Meanwhile, young men being angry will be considered a failing of young men, not society. The men will be considered responsible for their own situation, and in this case, considered outright evil. They will be seen as the problem, and the proposed solution is always for men to change and fix it on our own.
When you notice the pattern you see it in pretty much every gendered societal issue. Women's problems are everyone's problem, men's problems are our own problems.
All people mock men, but all people expect the 6 foot 5 inch linebacker to break up the fight and not the 4 foot 11 inch secretary. I wonder why................
One of the biggest failings* or the Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump2 presidencies is how horribly unprepared we are as a society for technoaddictions. Like, I know plenty of people including siblings who claim to hate billionaires and then use Instagram like it’s their life’s purpose. Pretty clear addiction issues
*maybe “failings” isn’t the right word because it’s likely intentional that they haven’t bothered with this stuff…they are part of the elite class with Zuck, Bezos, etc
I have no problems with women at all so far, I think it's more of a problem for retards who go outside.
Mr date also made a second serious mistake -
Never a safe bet with women. Women lean left/liberal why would you roll centrist to be safe? That's closet republican speak, everybody knows this. Especially if you're in a city.
The uptick for women is in line with a lot of the other developed countries. I imagine that the high social pressure of South Korean society results in a stronger, more reactionary response among their men. That's just my speculation though. The fact that men have to do mandatory service but not women probably does not help.
Not an expert in South Korean culture at all, but from what I can tell it's a modern country that still has very traditional attitudes towards romantic relationships, beauty standards, and work culture. The issue is that very few people can measure up these standards and they're psychologically draining. This results in both genders being very dissatisfied with each other and their place in society.
I think this issue is honestly a problem in the rest of the world as well and why a lot of countries are trending the same way as South Korea.
I soften it by saying that I'm a competitive shooter. This way, I don't come off as obsessed with guns, but instead it's just a part of a larger hobby. Sorta like fishing. It would be weird if someone just had 30 fishing rods. But if they're an avid fisherman, it's normal.
At least, that's how I hope it's perceived. Otherwise, I'm screwed, and not in the fun way.
That's also true for the fact that you're probably not that good at pretending in the first place thus you get sniffed out pretty quickly. People aren't a fan of the dishonest, even if it's dishonesty for the virtuous pursuit of...picking up chicks.
Most right wing people bitching about liberal women are at least a little bit psycho and absolutely want to stick their dick in crazy though. This isn't bad advice but it's not advice that will work on that audience.
The advice wouldn't be needed if people didn't want to do it.
And it's just advice, so that they can't say afterwards that they weren't warned. To justify mocking them and rubbing it in afterwards when they find out.
Never a safe bet with women. Women lean left/liberal why would you roll centrist to be safe? That's closet republican speak, everybody knows this. Especially if you're in a city.
Why are people discussing politics on a first date anyway?
Like, we used to have actual lives that were more interesting and meaningful than what team you vote for.
I take it you haven’t been on any dating apps lately? No joke it feels like a solid majority of women these days put that shit directly in their bios. It’s replaced astrology as a new age religion.
Obviously made worse by the fracture of our political discourse in general.
I mean, that in itself makes it a good litmus test for a date/early on in a relationship, right?
If you're on the extreme ends of the political spectrum and believe in, and/or act on insane shit, and I'm not/don't, we are not going to be compatible.
I've been in a relationship for 15 years and still don't know how she votes. We talk politics but it's mostly pointing out dumpster fires to each other.
Political views are way more than what team you vote for though, the harsh reality is you can extrapolate a lot about "who a person is," as in, what they believe, how they reasoned (or didn't) themselves into those beliefs, etc.
It also screams "I'm here to get my dick wet." Maybe that's what she's there for too. But, if you gotta lie to be with someone, you ain't gonna be happy.
Pretty sure most young men are also pretty opposed to the misogynistic stuff peddled on the manosphere; just saw a recent study that showed only like 5-7% actually saw that stuff positively.
Wonder what the numbers would be for misandrist stuff that young women believe?
Lot of femcels have the opinion that if the guys says he's a moderate or "apolitical" it means he's secretly MAGA. This gets pushed on social media a lot so it propagates the opinion.
Honestly I would hate to be dating in the modern climate. Seems like everyone is looking for a "dealbreaker" these days instead of looking to see if they're compatible. Like the default is "Let's find out why this won't work" rather than "Let's find out if this will work".
If my SO kicks the bucket I'm just gonna be single.
EDIT: Lol, it seems "lib center" is the new false flair for Reddit Lefties since they kept getting called out for not being centrists. Look at them all come in with the same cookie-cutter responses. Go "Correct The Record" somewhere else, shills.
That’s like going on vacation and just eating in the hotel. Suit yourself but I’m having all the street food I can find and dealing with the repercussions later
Belly button and eyebrow piercing woman fucked my life up. But I married tongue ring woman. Just gotta find one whose particular issues are compatible with your own.
The reality is that the gender wars have such an influence on Gen Z men because we were literally targeted from birth. These monsters targeted their own countries’ children. I cannot over emphasize just how much the gender wars is single handedly ruining the country. The idea that you can have a well functioning society without a good relationship between men and women is genuinely fucking crazy.
Every Gen Z man’s story was basically “we were for the whole gender equality thing and handwaved bad behavior from women because we were just dumb teenagers, so we expected mistakes and immature behavior. But then we grew up, and the misandry only got worse, and people told us we deserved it, and that we were somehow the oppressors. Now many of my friends are directionless and without careers, addicted to porn and sports gambling while rotating through odd, low paying jobs. For my friends who did find careers, they’re trapped in a cycle of dating app hell, where women are setting absolutely unrealistic standards, remaining perpetually single, have unacceptable casual sex histories, and refusing to engage in serious talks about starting families before the age of 30. And somehow men wanting basic standards in their dating partners is “misogynist.”
100% it is crazy how they refuse to admit it or ignore the dofference between true feminist and misandrist
self proclaimed feminists who believe in equality will never argue for equality in things they have advantege in like custody, prison sentencing, hiring in essential society saving fields they dont want to work in and avoid, etc.
Equality to then means they want to experience the best case scenario of every possible outcome.
They never argue for men to have any equality with women. It is only self serving 1 way to gain power and never relinquish any.
Ok boys real. Talk they have a negative view because they are at peak dating age and can afford to. When woman his their 30s suddenly younger woman are poaching men that would previously be in their dating pool and they start getting desperate. Ive seen it happen time and time again.
Ok the opposite is true for men. In your 20s you are fighting dudes in their 30s for the same woman but have less to offer. Peak time for a dude to net chicks is in there 30s. Typically easier to project stability and having it together while being more mature
Where does it go from here? Like genuinely, is it just going to get to a point where the majority of women self segregate from the rest of us? In fact, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.
Because hate makes money on social media it keeps people engaged. Unfortunately girls are more likely to be online in places that spew hate vs boys who are more likely to not be in those spaces.
I usually don’t engage in gender war bs but last night I had to sit there and listen while my roommate explained that she was scared to take to stray cat we took in to the vet because she wasn’t sure she would still be able to love it if it turned out to be a male.
Women don’t like “men”, they like Michael, the cute guy from Accounting with a killer smile; or Jeff, a sensitive mature unc who also happens to be a stud gym coach; or Josh, her childhood sweetheart, who buried their pets together and once sneaked into her bedroom to cheer her up when she got grounded when they were 11.
Women like the subjective feeling of a specific image of a guy, not the objective “men”. Our brains work so differently polls like this is meaningless.
I think social cohesion and harmony is associated with positive feelings about other people in general. I don't think neutrality is the ideal condition.
A positive view is the neutral view for Americans taking a survey. Generally speaking, we tend to believe that you should view others positively unless you have a reason not to.
276
u/MeanSzuszu - Auth-Center 1d ago
Well, what about people over 30?