I Hate Being Male

[gothy]

Okay, so i don't know where to put this. so i chose here because im kind of just gonna rant.

anyways, i hate being a guy.

Personally i know many great guys. but i seem to feel bad for being male.

For example, there was a violence against women assembly at school today.
which of course i totally support.
But i also take from it what im sure many dont.

Men are the abusers (always) and females are the victims (always).

there is no situation where the female is the abuser.

I feel just as strongly that something needs to be done to protect men from abusers (both male and female). but in our society, standing up for men is politically inncorrect and therefore puts you in the category of an opressor of women. so basically, there is no place to discuss the rape and violence against men.

for example, if a girlfriend is attacking her boyfriend, it is seen as socially acceptable and ignored.

"the man probably deserves it" "he probably cheated on her" "you go girll"

i witnessed this myself.

i dont know where im going with this.

but i gotta go now. so whatever you take from this, please share.

thank you.

[BookSmart]

As a female, I hate it when people push all men into the role of abuser, and never victim. Like you, I am one hundred percent against violence towards women, and I think it needs to be stopped! But I think violence towards men needs to be stopped too, and is equally important. I've expressed numerous times to my friends and family, when discussing topics such as abuse or rape, that it's not solely a female issue. I'm aware that it is mainly a female issue, but I don't think that means we should focus solely on protecting women. I'm glad I found someone who seems to stand my stance on this subject!

[Luminous]

I agree. Women are more commonly viewed as the victims because of sexism and also because there is a higher percentage of violence to women, especially young women. Here are a couple examples from this website (http://www.loveisrespect.org/is-this-abuse/dating-violence-statistics) that has citations in a PDF you can download at the bottom of the page.
"One quarter of high school girls have been victims of physical or sexual abuse."
"Girls and young women between the ages of 16 and 24 experience the highest rate of intimate partner violence -- almost triple the national average."
That does not make it right, but justifies it.... a little. Men are still abused every day and are often even more afraid of speaking up than women because they don't want to lose their 'manliness' or whatever BS. I'm all for gender equality in more ways than one. Sexism is everywhere, even disguised in things as stupid as this.

[Paladino]

I hate how it is socially acceptable for a girl to hit a guy, if he turned round and hit her back he would be prosecuted. Alot of girls hit guys because they know they can get away with it.

[Karkat]

Well, I feel like it's important to do something about problems women face, but you're right- not at the cost of men getting thrown by the wayside. If anything, violence against women is known to be an issue whereas violence against men is completely ignored. However, there are definitely certain advantages to being male.

[James Dean]

Have to kindly disagree with you on this. Speaking as a guy who to my knowledge is not a feminist lol. Usually men who are abused by women instigated the situation, or took advantage of the woman in one way or the other and she feels the need to be abusive towards him.

Reality is, Men are more violent and abuse women WAY more times than women abuse men. There are exceptions to the rule I agree, but they are just that. Exceptions.

So regardless of the circumstances, the man is always going to lose when it comes to that argument. No one should hit another person, but I understand why it's more acceptable for women to hit men than vice versa. Men are stronger than women so a woman hitting a man isn't going to have a big impact, rather than a man hitting a woman.

Women are also submissive, so therefore it is alright for them to show aggression. Touching men in wrong areas, slapping, say rude things to them, being seductive around them. If a guy were to do that to a woman, that would be unacceptable.

[Miserabilia]

Men are the abusers (always) and females are the victims (always).

there is no situation where the female is the abuser.



what did I just read.


In any case, I'm not going to sit here and feel bad about myself because some assholes out there hurt other people, regardless of what gender hurts what gender.

Men hurt men, men hurt women, women hurt men, women hurt women. Problems exist in all directions.

[gothy]

what did I just read.


In any case, I'm not going to sit here and feel bad about myself because some assholes out there hurt other people, regardless of what gender hurts what gender.

Men hurt men, men hurt women, women hurt men, women hurt women. Problems exist in all directions.

What ylu read is what they preach at my schools assembly.

As a female, I hate it when people push all men into the role of abuser, and never victim. Like you, I am one hundred percent against violence towards women, and I think it needs to be stopped! But I think violence towards men needs to be stopped too, and is equally important. I've expressed numerous times to my friends and family, when discussing topics such as abuse or rape, that it's not solely a female issue. I'm aware that it is mainly a female issue, but I don't think that means we should focus solely on protecting women. I'm glad I found someone who seems to stand my stance on this subject!


Thank you. :)

I think we should just end all negative acts towards one another. This would be best for everyone

Please use the 'multiquote' button next time. ~Typhlosion

[Miserabilia]

What ylu read is what they preach at my schools assembly.

Damn, that's so sad.
I can relate though, alot of "feminism " and "social justice" of late is not justified or or striving for equality at all.

I see that kind of s*t on tumblr all the time, I just ignore it usualy.
The thing is,
feminism is nececary; yes, women have been repressed or seen as objects throughout many places many times. So we need women to fight for equal treatment.

What we don't need is women who fight for more privileges because men are "privileged". After all that's the term they use now.
At the point like this where there's feminist websites describing how all men should be castrated or forced to live alone their adult lives,
and where terms such as "rape" are turned into something that's free to the women's interpetation,
the best thing is just to ignore it.

As long as there's men and women, we'll need to learn to live together.
As long as there's men, women won't be able to do some of the things described by "feminist" of the internet.
As long as there's actual feminists who strive for equal treatment, men shouldn't be able to take controll.

So I aggree, but I don't think there's a reason to feel bad about being male. Just be proud of it, or ignore it, just like anyone can be proud of or ignore their sex or gender or sexuality or etnicity.

[Babs]

Women can be abusers, but often women are victimized because of sexism, like others have said. In an attempt to combat sexism, people often treat women like wounded baby deer, which is wrong. Women can be strong or weak, same with men. Likewise, women have the same capabilities to do good and to do evil, much like men.
I think it's more common for men to be the abusers, mainly because of toxic masculinity (a form of sexism towards men) and because most men are naturally larger than women. That's not to say it's not as bad or less important; there are still plenty of female abusers and it's equally as sickening.

[gothy]

Damn, that's so sad.
I can relate though, alot of "feminism " and "social justice" of late is not justified or or striving for equality at all.

I see that kind of s*t on tumblr all the time, I just ignore it usualy.
The thing is,
feminism is nececary; yes, women have been repressed or seen as objects throughout many places many times. So we need women to fight for equal treatment.

What we don't need is women who fight for more privileges because men are "privileged". After all that's the term they use now.
At the point like this where there's feminist websites describing how all men should be castrated or forced to live alone their adult lives,
and where terms such as "rape" are turned into something that's free to the women's interpetation,
the best thing is just to ignore it.

As long as there's men and women, we'll need to learn to live together.
As long as there's men, women won't be able to do some of the things described by "feminist" of the internet.
As long as there's actual feminists who strive for equal treatment, men shouldn't be able to take controll.

So I aggree, but I don't think there's a reason to feel bad about being male. Just be proud of it, or ignore it, just like anyone can be proud of or ignore their sex or gender or sexuality or etnicity.


you are right. I do see the opression of women. and inequality. but what i think is taking place in modern feminism is not a fight for equality. its a fight to be what women don't like about men. And in that they tend to discriminate and forget the whole equality issue.

I am a feminist. but im more of the type of feminist where

1. women are equal to men. (men are not greater than woman and women are not greater than man)

2. women are not innocent. men are not always guilty. if you want equality, if you show one sex in a bad light, you have to show the other sex in an equally bad light.

3. although men used to be opressive in North american society. it does not mean we are all dominatrix abusive patriarchs with a thing against women.

4. Men are abused, raped, assaulted, dicriminated, harassed, molested, and stigmatized. Attention neeeds to be drawn to both male and female issues in society

5. Trying to make male violence look worse and brush off female violence, creates a world where violence is seen as acceptable when women hurt men. this is still violence and at the end of the day what did these protests cause except more violence and stigma?

6. violence against women sends the message only certain people are important in society. and tells women to fear men.
this again leads to stigma, violence, predjudice, legal double standards, and over all is sexist and discriminatory. as far as im concerned.
this is the last thing the first feminists would associate themselves with.
causing fear is how you control people. brainwashing is not the save as resolving.




agree? :) disagree?

[Babs]

you are right. I do see the opression of women. and inequality. but what i think is taking place in modern feminism is not a fight for equality. its a fight to be what women don't like about men. And in that they tend to discriminate and forget the whole equality issue.

I am a feminist. but im more of the type of feminist where

1. women are equal to men. (men are not greater than woman and women are not greater than man)

2. women are not innocent. men are not always guilty. if you want equality, if you show one sex in a bad light, you have to show the other sex in an equally bad light.

3. although men used to be opressive in North american society. it does not mean we are all dominatrix abusive patriarchs with a thing against women.

4. Men are abused, raped, assaulted, dicriminated, harassed, molested, and stigmatized. Attention neeeds to be drawn to both male and female issues in society

5. Trying to make male violence look worse and brush off female violence, creates a world where violence is seen as acceptable when women hurt men. this is still violence and at the end of the day what did these protests cause except more violence and stigma?

6. violence against women sends the message only certain people are important in society. and tells women to fear men.
this again leads to stigma, violence, predjudice, legal double standards, and over all is sexist and discriminatory. as far as im concerned.
this is the last thing the first feminists would associate themselves with.
causing fear is how you control people. brainwashing is not the save as resolving.




agree? :) disagree?

You'll find that most credible feminists agree with this.
Most who don't are angsty teenagers, or troll blogs on the internet.
However, I highly doubt any feminist tells women to fear men. That happens on its own, because street harassment is very prevalent and targeted almost exclusively to women. Even the most ridiculous feminist doesn't say "FEAR MEN!!!" but rather going to the root of the problem as to WHY women often fear men, and how it can be helped.

[dirtyboxer55]

Women can be abusers, but often women are victimized because of sexism, like others have said.

lol women arent victimized because of sexism, theyre victimized because men are more physically dominant

idk i feel like if someone abuses/rapes a girl it would be because she cant defend herself (easy target) as opposed to "damn women whys she not doing my laundry and making me a sandwich"

[Miserabilia]

you are right. I do see the opression of women. and inequality. but what i think is taking place in modern feminism is not a fight for equality. its a fight to be what women don't like about men. And in that they tend to discriminate and forget the whole equality issue.

I am a feminist. but im more of the type of feminist where

1. women are equal to men. (men are not greater than woman and women are not greater than man)

2. women are not innocent. men are not always guilty. if you want equality, if you show one sex in a bad light, you have to show the other sex in an equally bad light.

3. although men used to be opressive in North american society. it does not mean we are all dominatrix abusive patriarchs with a thing against women.

4. Men are abused, raped, assaulted, dicriminated, harassed, molested, and stigmatized. Attention neeeds to be drawn to both male and female issues in society

5. Trying to make male violence look worse and brush off female violence, creates a world where violence is seen as acceptable when women hurt men. this is still violence and at the end of the day what did these protests cause except more violence and stigma?

6. violence against women sends the message only certain people are important in society. and tells women to fear men.
this again leads to stigma, violence, predjudice, legal double standards, and over all is sexist and discriminatory. as far as im concerned.
this is the last thing the first feminists would associate themselves with.
causing fear is how you control people. brainwashing is not the save as resolving.




agree? :) disagree?

Aggree, ofcourse.

You'll see that the women sprouting other information aren't to be taken seriously. They can call themselves feminist but the truth is they probably haven't achieved anything other than causing a ruckus.
#tumblr

[Babs]

lol women arent victimized because of sexism, theyre victimized because men are more physically dominant

idk i feel like if someone abuses/rapes a girl it would be because she cant defend herself (easy target) as opposed to "damn women whys she not doing my laundry and making me a sandwich"

You're missing my point entirely.
Women are seen only as victims and not abusers because of sexism, not the acts themselves. The whole "treat women like wounded Bambi because I care about women" thing. Women are seen as inherently weak, because of sexism. Men are seen as inherently dominant, because of sexism. Whereas men and women can both be victims. Google "toxic masculinity", and you'll understand my point.
Also, not all rape cases are the same. Often, in the case of a man raping a woman, it can be because she's an easy target. Other times, it CAN be because of a sexist mindset from the rapist.

[dirtyboxer55]

You're missing my point entirely.
Women are seen only as victims and not abusers because of sexism, not the acts themselves. The whole "treat women like wounded Bambi because I care about women" thing. Women are seen as inherently weak, because of sexism. Men are seen as inherently dominant, because of sexism. Whereas men and women can both be victims. Google "toxic masculinity", and you'll understand my point.


you said women are victims cause sexism, not that theyre seen as victims so thats what i responded to, maybe you didnt mean it like that. also men treating women like bambi isnt them trying to be sexist, its a natural instinct in men to protect potential mates. and almost all men are seen as inherently dominant because of physiological traits that make them more physically dominant than women, not because of sexism.

i looked up 'toxic masculinity' and it seems to correlate with the physiological traits i spoke about. men and womens brains are fundamentally different. men have more testosterone, which makes us more prone to violence, and have higher sex drive. men are also less emotional, as they have smaller frontal and temporal lobes (however we have much more grey matter ;) ). so to me toxic masculinity seems like an analysis of the differences between men and women.

[Babs]

you said women are victims cause sexism, not that theyre seen as victims so thats what i responded to, maybe you didnt mean it like that. also men treating women like bambi isnt them trying to be sexist, its a natural instinct in men to protect potential mates. and almost all men are seen as inherently dominant because of physiological traits that make them more physically dominant than women, not because of sexism.

i looked up 'toxic masculinity' and it seems to correlate with the physiological traits i spoke about. men and womens brains are fundamentally different. men have more testosterone, which makes us more prone to violence, and have higher sex drive. men are also less emotional, as they have smaller frontal and temporal lobes (however we have much more grey matter ;) ). so to me toxic masculinity seems like an analysis of the differences between men and women.

I said women are VICTIMIZED, which doesn't necessarily mean they're victims.
No, treating women like they're all inherently weak and in need of help and as if we're all victims is mildly sexist. Is there another word for an inherent bias based upon sex? Because if so I'd LOVE to hear it.
Men are not inherently dominant, nor are women inherently submissive. That's an outdated mindset.
And no, you've missed the point of the concept of toxic masculinity; it's not the analyses of differences between men and women. It's that we train men that they HAVE to be masculine, that they HAVE to be dominant and that pressure results in the idea that men are dominant and women are weak and submissive, and that if men aren't dominant then they're not worth it, if that makes sense. It suppresses emotions.
Men can be equally as emotional as women. Women can be equally as violent as men.
Honestly, everything you're saying is right out of the 1960s.

[dirtyboxer55]

I said women are VICTIMIZED, which doesn't necessarily mean they're victims.

wat. victimize implies youre making someone into a victim. if you victimize someone by abusing them they are a victim of your abuse. please clarify if im wrong.

No, treating women like they're all inherently weak and in need of help and as if we're all victims is mildly sexist. Is there another word for an inherent bias based upon sex? Because if so I'd LOVE to hear it.

women arent weak, but physically they are weaker than men. and you may view men trying to protect women as sexist, but its a gene passed down to them by their ancestors. if they did not have this gene they would not be here. no drive to protect potential mates = no offspring.

Men are not inherently dominant, nor are women inherently submissive. That's an outdated mindset.

physically men are dominant due to testosterone. women are dominant in understanding body language due to their larger temporal and frontal lobes. how is this outdated? ofc im not saying men cant study body language or that women take anabolics, but naturally this is how it is due to our body chemistry.

And no, you've missed the point of the concept of toxic masculinity; it's not the analyses of differences between men and women. It's that we train men that they HAVE to be masculine, that they HAVE to be dominant and that pressure results in the idea that men are dominant and women are weak and submissive, and that if men aren't dominant then they're not worth it, if that makes sense. It suppresses emotions.
Men can be equally as emotional as women. Women can be equally as violent as men.

its expected men to be masculine because of the traits ive listed above, as well as women to be feminine because of their traits. im still a little confused about the negatives of 'toxic masculinity'. :confused:

Honestly, everything you're saying is right out of the 1960s.
everything i said is backed by science.

[Babs]

wat. victimize implies youre making someone into a victim. if you victimize someone by abusing them they are a victim of your abuse. please clarify if im wrong.

women arent weak, but physically they are weaker than men. and you may view men trying to protect women as sexist, but its a gene passed down to them by their ancestors. if they did not have this gene they would not be here. no drive to protect potential mates = no offspring.

physically men are dominant due to testosterone. women are dominant in understanding body language due to their larger temporal and frontal lobes. how is this outdated? ofc im not saying men cant study body language or that women take anabolics, but naturally this is how it is due to our body chemistry.

its expected men to be masculine because of the traits ive listed above, as well as women to be feminine because of their traits. im still a little confused about the negatives of 'toxic masculinity'. :confused:

everything i said is backed by science.

Victimization isn't necessarily being a victim. It's being made out to be a victim. Sometimes someone who is victimized is a victim, others people just act as if they were victims.
Once again, you're misconstruing my point. Men trying to protect women isn't sexist in itself, however acting as if all women are weaklings and men are our only saviors is sexist.
Men aren't inherently dominant. There are smaller men, there are larger men, and the same goes for women. Men are naturally a little larger, but that doesn't necessarily imply dominance 100% of the time.
Your views on women being inherently submissive and men being inherently dominant due to testosterone is outdated, not the fact that men are a little larger and stronger. Both men and women can be either dominant or submissive, regardless of their size. It's not necessarily something that's exclusively dictated by size. Likewise, both men and women can be abusers. That mindset of yours contributes to toxic masculinity, and you're not doing men any favors by continuing in that mindset, kiddo.
Toxic masculinity is bad because it pressures men to be big manly men and if they're not that, they're worthless and weak. It implies that femininity is weakness, but that's not true. And it makes men suppress their emotions, which is unhealthy. This often leads to abusive behaviors towards their partners, because they're supposed to be dominant big strong manly-men.
This isn't a difficult concept.

[Karkat]

everything i said is backed by science.

If you ignore the fact that sociocultural evolution exists, maybe.

Like, your argument is dependent on humans being static both biologically and socioculturally. "Times are changing" isn't just liberal nonsense- it's kinda accepted as a given. It's been happening for thousands of years.

[mcdaniels]

Some very wise words man :)

[phuckphace]

once upon a time the evil male patriarchy functioned as a system for protection and care of women and as a result instances of rape and domestic violence were much rarer than today. nearly all women had a multitude of male family members who would've killed the first person who looked at them funny. all that AND the luxury of not having to slave away in a coal mine for sixteen hours a day, or spend an equal amount of time with their faces near a giant vat of molten metal, etc. etc. a husband who showers you with free money in exchange for meal preparation and child care, women used to have a solid deal, too bad we decided to throw all that out in exchange for MY INDEPENDENCE *family breaks down* *rape soars by 9001%* welp.

[dirtyboxer55]

Victimization isn't necessarily being a victim. It's being made out to be a victim. Sometimes someone who is victimized is a victim, others people just act as if they were victims.

then our interpretation of the word is different. to me, if someone is victimized they are a victim of the crime.

Once again, you're misconstruing my point. Men trying to protect women isn't sexist in itself, however acting as if all women are weaklings and men are our only saviors is sexist.

let me guess, you think damsel in distress movies are sexist as well?

Men aren't inherently dominant. There are smaller men, there are larger men, and the same goes for women. Men are naturally a little larger, but that doesn't necessarily imply dominance 100% of the time.

men are physically dominant 99% of the time. there are of course always outliers. a full grown adult male being weaker than a full grown adult female is emaciated, outwieghed by a lot, or has a disorder like muscular dystrophy. (also some other effects could come into play, studies have shown excessive intake of soy/milk products can increase estrogen levels in men)

Your views on women being inherently submissive and men being inherently dominant due to testosterone is outdated, not the fact that men are a little larger and stronger. Both men and women can be either dominant or submissive, regardless of their size. It's not necessarily something that's exclusively dictated by size.

note how i said physical before i said dominant like every time. thats cause men are physically dominant, but dominance in general is determined by so many other things that have happened in a specific persons life. because of this i agree in both women and men can be dominant in general. but all men at the back of their mind will always be striving to be the dominant 'alpha male' of their group, which results in overall men being more dominant. when you think dictator, or people who 'took control' in history, who do you think of? joseph stalin? hitler? or on a lighter note revolutionaries like john adams? the internal lust for power, to be dominant, the leader, in men has not gone anywhere

Likewise, both men and women can be abusers. That mindset of yours contributes to toxic masculinity, and you're not doing men any favors by continuing in that mindset, kiddo.

im backing up everything i say with examples and reasoning, love it or hate it. if that contributes to toxic masculinity than so be it

Toxic masculinity is bad because it pressures men to be big manly men and if they're not that, they're worthless and weak. It implies that femininity is weakness, but that's not true.

some men have found different interpretations in the 'big man' pressure, such as bill gates (wow another guy who had the drive for power and worked his way to the top). with respect, bill gates isnt much of a manly man, but is he worthtless and weak? of course not. he wanted to be the big man in charge at a large worldwide corporation. i might go as far as to say toxic masculinity is a motivator for me. some of my old kickboxing friends said i was thin like a girl a ways back, so i hit the weights to fulfill the societal pressure of looking like a man. now i have a physique i can be proud of and am addicted to working out

And it makes men suppress their emotions, which is unhealthy. This often leads to abusive behaviors towards their partners, because they're supposed to be dominant big strong manly-men.

citation needed

If you ignore the fact that sociocultural evolution exists, maybe.

Like, your argument is dependent on humans being static both biologically and socioculturally. "Times are changing" isn't just liberal nonsense- it's kinda accepted as a given. It's been happening for thousands of years.

time are always changing.

explain specifically what i said that is proven wrong by this. oh wait, you cant.

[Karkat]

then our interpretation of the word is different. to me, if someone is victimized they are a victim of the crime.

let me guess, you think damsel in distress movies are sexist as well?

men are physically dominant 99% of the time. there are of course always outliers. a full grown adult male being weaker than a full grown adult female is emaciated, outwieghed by a lot, or has a disorder like muscular dystrophy. (also some other effects could come into play, studies have shown excessive intake of soy/milk products can increase estrogen levels in men)

note how i said physical before i said dominant like every time. thats cause men are physically dominant, but dominance in general is determined by so many other things that have happened in a specific persons life. because of this i agree in both women and men can be dominant in general. but all men at the back of their mind will always be striving to be the dominant 'alpha male' of their group, which results in overall men being more dominant. when you think dictator, or people who 'took control' in history, who do you think of? joseph stalin? hitler? or on a lighter note revolutionaries like john adams? the internal lust for power, to be dominant, the leader, in men has not gone anywhere

im backing up everything i say with examples and reasoning, love it or hate it. if that contributes to toxic masculinity than so be it

some men have found different interpretations in the 'big man' pressure, such as bill gates (wow another guy who had the drive for power and worked his way to the top). with respect, bill gates isnt much of a manly man, but is he worthtless and weak? of course not. he wanted to be the big man in charge at a large worldwide corporation. i might go as far as to say toxic masculinity is a motivator for me. some of my old kickboxing friends said i was thin like a girl a ways back, so i hit the weights to fulfill the societal pressure of looking like a man. now i have a physique i can be proud of and am addicted to working out

citation needed



time are always changing.

explain specifically what i said that is proven wrong by this. oh wait, you cant.

Your argument relies on society needing to stick to primitive roles to survive and thrive. It doesn't. Technological and intellectual advancement has made it possible for everyone to live comfortably.

Do we? Not yet, of course, but we're still at the dawn of an era. Progress needs to happen in order for advancement to be made. Stagnant thinking does not equal progress.

Basically, you're relying solely on human biology (which would take longer to change) and entirely forgetting about anthropology. Ergo, you're not even looking at every side of this, your argument has a serious bias and can't be taken seriously.

Anyone can manipulate the facts in their favor.

Q.E.D

Also, if you're not going to bother debating intelligently, you're just wasting everyone's time. There's no need to be nasty.

[dirtyboxer55]

Your argument relies on society needing to stick to primitive roles to survive and thrive. It doesn't. Technological and intellectual advancement has made it possible for everyone to live comfortably.

'my argument'
i recall asking for a specific part, so way to narrow it down...

also my argument does not rely on using primitive roles to survive. a man will naturally have higher test than a woman, regardless of whether hes a hunter, gatherer, or 21st century video gamer.


Do we? Not yet, of course, but we're still at the dawn of an era. Progress needs to happen in order for advancement to be made. Stagnant thinking does not equal progress.

so me thinking that men are physically dominant to women (which is a fact) is holding back the advancement of the human race? are scientists working on cures and developers working on new technology are held back by this?


Basically, you're relying solely on human biology (which would take longer to change) and entirely forgetting about anthropology. Ergo, you're not even looking at every side of this, your argument has a serious bias and can't be taken seriously.


im having a real hard time responding to your quotes. what i gather from this part is that youre saying my argument is just wrong. it is coded in the brains and genes of men to strive for the dominant alpha position.

also how is my argument 'bias'? is it because im a guy saying men are stronger? should i ignore feminists who try and say females have larger frontal lobes because shes a female? no, because thats a fact.


Anyone can manipulate the facts in their favor.

this is the ohko sentence. no matter what i present to you or tell you, no matter how many sources i show, you can always accuse me of manipulating facts. what a cop-out.


Q.E.D

Also, if you're not going to bother debating intelligently, you're just wasting everyone's time. There's no need to be nasty.

oh i love this part right here. call my debating unintelligent (which really isnt true, am i wrong in anything ive said? if so state where), and then say that im the one being nasty. that statement is ad hominem.

dismissing my side because its not 'intelligent'. have i insulted anyone (like you did multiple times in this post subtly)? no. ive been calm and explaining everything and backing up what i say.

[Typhlosion]

this is the ohko sentence. no matter what i present to you or tell you, no matter how many sources i show, you can always accuse me of manipulating facts. what a cop-out.

You haven't shown a single source, AFAIK.

Unless it's directly related to your signature.

[Babs]

then our interpretation of the word is different. to me, if someone is victimized they are a victim of the crime.

let me guess, you think damsel in distress movies are sexist as well?

men are physically dominant 99% of the time. there are of course always outliers. a full grown adult male being weaker than a full grown adult female is emaciated, outwieghed by a lot, or has a disorder like muscular dystrophy. (also some other effects could come into play, studies have shown excessive intake of soy/milk products can increase estrogen levels in men)

note how i said physical before i said dominant like every time. thats cause men are physically dominant, but dominance in general is determined by so many other things that have happened in a specific persons life. because of this i agree in both women and men can be dominant in general. but all men at the back of their mind will always be striving to be the dominant 'alpha male' of their group, which results in overall men being more dominant. when you think dictator, or people who 'took control' in history, who do you think of? joseph stalin? hitler? or on a lighter note revolutionaries like john adams? the internal lust for power, to be dominant, the leader, in men has not gone anywhere

im backing up everything i say with examples and reasoning, love it or hate it. if that contributes to toxic masculinity than so be it

some men have found different interpretations in the 'big man' pressure, such as bill gates (wow another guy who had the drive for power and worked his way to the top). with respect, bill gates isnt much of a manly man, but is he worthtless and weak? of course not. he wanted to be the big man in charge at a large worldwide corporation. i might go as far as to say toxic masculinity is a motivator for me. some of my old kickboxing friends said i was thin like a girl a ways back, so i hit the weights to fulfill the societal pressure of looking like a man. now i have a physique i can be proud of and am addicted to working out

citation needed



time are always changing.

explain specifically what i said that is proven wrong by this. oh wait, you cant.

Jesus christ, you're making zero effort to understand ANYTHING I'm telling you.
Go back and read my posts a few times until it sinks in, instead of interpreting them as something completely irrelevant to my intention behind my words.
Also, you keep referring to humans as if we're primitive beasts. Yes, a lot of our society goes back to how it was done back in the good ol' days of 8000 B.C., but you don't see me living in a cave or a hut made from mud, or beating an animal with a club so I can have dinner. We evolved beyond the "searching for a mate" thing you keep referring to.
And once again, no, protecting women isn't sexist. However, acting as if all women are helpless weaklings, and acting as if men are our only saviors as if we can't take care of ourselves, is sexist.
Oh, and that citation that you require is in the toxic masculinity articles you supposedly read, which are backed up by basic, modern psychology rather than the primitive habits you cling to.

[NeuroTiger]

Males are dominant by nature but that do not imply that they should abuse women.
Also, with women being made 'equal' to men by rights sometimes tend to be confusing (e.g ladies first policy,etc). If they(feminists) are 'equal' to men, why not bear the same responsability or use the same public toilet :p ?

[Babs]

Males are dominant by nature but that do not imply that they should abuse women.
Also, with women being made 'equal' to men by rights sometimes tend to be confusing (e.g ladies first policy,etc). If they(feminists) are 'equal' to men, why not bear the same responsability or use the same public toilet :p ?

The "ladies first" thing is so trivial.
As a feminist, I want women to bear the same responsibility.
Also, public toilets have nothing to do with this. Having different bathrooms isn't a social inequality.

[Karkat]

'my argument'
i recall asking for a specific part, so way to narrow it down...

also my argument does not rely on using primitive roles to survive. a man will naturally have higher test than a woman, regardless of whether hes a hunter, gatherer, or 21st century video gamer.


so me thinking that men are physically dominant to women (which is a fact) is holding back the advancement of the human race? are scientists working on cures and developers working on new technology are held back by this?



im having a real hard time responding to your quotes. what i gather from this part is that youre saying my argument is just wrong. it is coded in the brains and genes of men to strive for the dominant alpha position.

also how is my argument 'bias'? is it because im a guy saying men are stronger? should i ignore feminists who try and say females have larger frontal lobes because shes a female? no, because thats a fact.


this is the ohko sentence. no matter what i present to you or tell you, no matter how many sources i show, you can always accuse me of manipulating facts. what a cop-out.



oh i love this part right here. call my debating unintelligent (which really isnt true, am i wrong in anything ive said? if so state where), and then say that im the one being nasty. that statement is ad hominem.

dismissing my side because its not 'intelligent'. have i insulted anyone (like you did multiple times in this post subtly)? no. ive been calm and explaining everything and backing up what i say.

:rolleyes:

You're still entirely ignoring societal evolution. Biology alone does not a man make. I don't need to dismiss your facts because they aren't inherently 'false', what I am saying is that you're manipulating context. Context is where you are failing to have any sense of solidarity.

When taken in context of modern times, biology don't mean jack shit. Tell me exactly where a man would "have" to protect a potential mate in this modern age. Take SOCIETY into context, because a very large part of our world now relies on SOCIETY.

The 'weaker links' biologically are still more than fit enough to survive in this day and age. We don't need to rely on pure brute primitive survival skill as a species, we have technology, science, and intellectual advancements.

And for your information, the bias I was referring to was your argument. Your argument had a bias towards biology, with an utter disregard for any real practical context. I pretty much stated that outright, I don't know how you misread it.

And your smart little presumptuous jab that I have no real information to offer on this subject or basically couldn't prove you wrong or tell you anything you didn't already know wasn't a cop-out? Interesting.

I'll tell you right now that I'm not intimidated by your little attempts to make me back off. This is an intellectual debate; act like it.

Also, when I was referring to "debating intelligently", I was referring to this:

explain specifically what i said that is proven wrong by this. oh wait, you cant.

Sound familiar?

If you're going to keep being unreasonable, I'm just gonna stop responding, because it's just not worth my time.

Link has keys to find, and I'm not gonna let a fool's errand stop him ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You haven't shown a single source, AFAIK.

Unless it's directly related to your signature.

LMAO ikr

That alone should be direct evidence against "I have insulted no one"

Erm, right

At least I'm not the one with the blatantly condescending and arrogant signature

But oh, right, ad hominem, ad hominem, my bad

Wouldn't want to get anyone rumprustled or let them be hoisted by their own petard

http://www.brocoolnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/lookout.png

Yeesh

[dirtyboxer55]

You haven't shown a single source, AFAIK.

Unless it's directly related to your signature.
if you question anything i say let me know and i will happily provide reliable source.


Jesus christ, you're making zero effort to understand ANYTHING I'm telling you.
Go back and read my posts a few times until it sinks in, instead of interpreting them as something completely irrelevant to my intention behind my words.

why you heff to be mad

Also, you keep referring to humans as if we're primitive beasts.

how

We evolved beyond the "searching for a mate" thing you keep referring to.

no. the behavior of men changes when women are introduced to the environment. this is well known. also do you understand evolution? the ones looking for mates are the ones creating offspring and keeping the gene alive. it doesnt just disappear because we get a little smarter.


And once again, no, protecting women isn't sexist. However, acting as if all women are helpless weaklings, and acting as if men are our only saviors as if we can't take care of ourselves, is sexist.

well a lot of the cinema (specifically action) seems to portray women as helpless, with the exception of wonder woman


Oh, and that citation that you require is in the toxic masculinity articles you supposedly read, which are backed up by basic, modern psychology rather than the primitive habits you cling to.
thats not fair, making me do the research for you? if you asked me for citations on my claims id gladly do the research for you, not just tell you its in some articles (which is very broad and not very helpful). also thats somewhat rude how you say my habits are primitive? like do you even know me?

:rolleyes:

Biology alone does not a man make.

i agree

When taken in context of modern times, biology don't mean jack shit. Tell me exactly where a man would "have" to protect a potential mate in this modern age.

in times modern and ancient, men would never "have" to protect a potential mate. but he would because his mind is telling him potential offspring. in modern times its not protect as in save from threat.



We don't need to rely on pure brute primitive survival skill as a species, we have technology, science, and intellectual advancements.

technology is relatively new though. which is why broad shoulders in men and child bearing hips in women are seen as more attractive than an sat score.


And for your information, the bias I was referring to was your argument. Your argument had a bias towards biology, with an utter disregard for any real practical context. I pretty much stated that outright, I don't know how you misread it.

skimming, and doing homework on the side so my focus was split.


And your smart little presumptuous jab that I have no real information to offer on this subject or basically couldn't prove you wrong or tell you anything you didn't already know wasn't a cop-out? Interesting.

no, the fact you cant prove me wrong wasnt a cop out, your statement was. disagree with facts -> the facts must be manipulated to seem a certain way.


I'll tell you right now that I'm not intimidated by your little attempts to make me back off. This is an intellectual debate; act like it.

im hoping that you wouldnt be intimidated by something i say on a forum..


Also, when I was referring to "debating intelligently", I was referring to this:



Sound familiar?

If you're going to keep being unreasonable, I'm just gonna stop responding, because it's just not worth my time.

im not being unreasonable. if you prove anything i say wrong ill accept it, but your arguments arent strong enough.


At least I'm not the one with the blatantly condescending and arrogant signature

nothing to say about this one
once again, if you wanna see a source on anything tell me.

[Babs]

if you question anything i say let me know and i will happily provide reliable source.



why you heff to be mad

how

no. the behavior of men changes when women are introduced to the environment. this is well known. also do you understand evolution? the ones looking for mates are the ones creating offspring and keeping the gene alive. it doesnt just disappear because we get a little smarter.


well a lot of the cinema (specifically action) seems to portray women as helpless, with the exception of wonder woman


thats not fair, making me do the research for you? if you asked me for citations on my claims id gladly do the research for you, not just tell you its in some articles (which is very broad and not very helpful). also thats somewhat rude how you say my habits are primitive? like do you even know me?


i agree

in times modern and ancient, men would never "have" to protect a potential mate. but he would because his mind is telling him potential offspring. in modern times its not protect as in save from threat.


technology is relatively new though. which is why broad shoulders in men and child bearing hips in women are seen as more attractive than an sat score.


skimming, and doing homework on the side so my focus was split.


no, the fact you cant prove me wrong wasnt a cop out, your statement was. disagree with facts -> the facts must be manipulated to seem a certain way.


im hoping that you wouldnt be intimidated by something i say on a forum..


im not being unreasonable. if you prove anything i say wrong ill accept it, but your arguments arent strong enough.


nothing to say about this one
once again, if you wanna see a source on anything tell me.

You're missing my point entirely.
If this is really so hard to grasp, I suppose you'll have to change your signature.

[dirtyboxer55]

You're missing my point entirely.
If this is really so hard to grasp, I suppose you'll have to change your signature.

all of my points are valid. i suggest instead of saying im missing the point you listen to what im saying with an open mind :) thats what ive done.

[Karkat]

technology is relatively new though. which is why broad shoulders in men and child bearing hips in women are seen as more attractive than an sat score.

no, the fact you cant prove me wrong wasnt a cop out, your statement was. disagree with facts -> the facts must be manipulated to seem a certain way.


im hoping that you wouldnt be intimidated by something i say on a forum..


im not being unreasonable. if you prove anything i say wrong ill accept it, but your arguments arent strong enough.


nothing to say about this one
once again, if you wanna see a source on anything tell me.

http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/3918923.jpg

You're not helping your own argument there. You practically admitted that we're headed in that direction.

I mean, it's not like it's gonna fucking happen overnight, no.

As for the rest? Pff whatever. Afaik you haven't been cooperative to anyone, if anything you've been quite pedantic, and complacent

But that's not going to keep me up at night so, you know, you do your thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

thats what ive done.

*snort* That's a boldfaced lie if I've ever seen one.

[Babs]

image (http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/3918923.jpg)

You're not helping your own argument there. You practically admitted that we're headed in that direction.

I mean, it's not like it's gonna fucking happen overnight, no.

As for the rest? Pff whatever. Afaik you haven't been cooperative to anyone, if anything you've been quite pedantic, and complacent

But that's not going to keep me up at night so, you know, you do your thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



*snort* That's a boldfaced lie if I've ever seen one.

Basically this.
There's not much more that can be said.

all of my points are valid. i suggest instead of saying im missing the point you listen to what im saying with an open mind :) thats what ive done.

You haven't listened with an open mind, I just think you're entirely wrong. However, you have missed my point entirely and if I didn't know better, I'd think you were misconstruing everything I said deliberately.
Basically, all you have said would ordinarily be accurate, if it were applied to neanderthals.
This was the most asinine discussion, because according to the other party, men can never be anything but dominant, and women can't be anything but docile "because biology". It's a very narrow way to view men and women.

[dirtyboxer55]

As for the rest? Pff whatever. Afaik you haven't been cooperative to anyone, if anything you've been quite pedantic, and complacent

so when i said 'oh wait, you cant' i was right

You haven't listened with an open mind, I just think you're entirely wrong.

but nothing i said has been wrong. if you disagree please point out where.


Basically, all you have said would ordinarily be accurate, if it were applied to neanderthals.

do you not get it? everything i said was accurate to humans. they didnt find that neanderthal females had less testosterone and larger frontal lobes, they found that humans did.

men have an instinct to protect and prove their worth to potential mates. the fact you even tried to deny this, how do you think 'ladies first' originated?


This was the most asinine discussion, because according to the other party, men can never be anything but dominant, and women can't be anything but docile "because biology". It's a very narrow way to view men and women.
can you stop twisting my words like that? healthy men will always be physically dominant over women (except for outliers with conditions or disorders). not dominant in general. also women aren't always docile, but are less aggressive due to less testosterone. are you trying to say women are supposed to have equal testosterone to men?

[Babs]

but nothing i said has been wrong. if you disagree please point out where.



Just about everything you said is what I disagree with.
Yes, we know that females have larger frontal lobes and males have more testosterone. That's not the point.
You keep using that to back up your poor argument that men can't be anything but dominant and women can't be anything but docile and submissive. You also condone toxic masculinity, which is detrimental to the mental health of men.
You have a narrow viewpoint on men and women, and your utter refusal to change it is astounding to me.

[Karkat]

so when i said 'oh wait, you cant' i was right

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Cool_story_bro_1359.jpeg

Psssh yeah right, like I'm falling for that one

I can't take you seriously when you make immature jabs at my character. (I can see a new children's book in the making; The Boy Who Cried "Ad Hominem")

But seriously, this isn't worth my time anymore, I'm not sure if it ever was. I guess it was entertaining due to its level of absurdity. Oh well.

Am outtie. Laterz. Cya

[dirtyboxer55]

Just about everything you said is what I disagree with.
Yes, we know that females have larger frontal lobes and males have more testosterone. That's not the point.
You keep using that to back up your poor argument that men can't be anything but dominant and women can't be anything but docile and submissive. You also condone toxic masculinity, which is detrimental to the mental health of men.
You have a narrow viewpoint on men and women, and your utter refusal to change it is astounding to me.

yeah i responded to this in my last post did you not see it? it was the same post you quoted.. and yes those are key points because they explain certain male and female behaviors.

and why would i change my viewpoint when youve given me no reason to?


Psssh yeah right, like I'm falling for that one

I can't take you seriously when you make immature jabs at my character.

jabbing's in my nature


But seriously, this isn't worth my time anymore, I'm not sure if it ever was.
you wasted your time. you put in effort and got nothing back, how do you feel?

[Babs]

and why would i change my viewpoint when youve given me no reason to?


Because you're acting as if all men and all women are just one thing and that's not true. How hard is it to grasp that?

[dirtyboxer55]

Because you're acting as if all men and all women are just one thing and that's not true. How hard is it to grasp that?

no. men and women are more than one thing, when did i ever say that they were confined to their differences. men are PHYSICALLY dominant over women. accept it and move on. its why men always fought the wars, did the manual labor, and hunted animals. it hasnt changed.

how hard is it to grasp that

[Babs]

no. men and women are more than one thing, when did i ever say that they were confined to their differences. men are PHYSICALLY dominant over women. accept it and move on. its why men always fought the wars, did the manual labor, and hunted animals. it hasnt changed.

how hard is it to grasp that

I never said men weren't naturally stronger than women. Again, you're missing my point entirely.
Since you have proven incapable of taking a single thing I've said without misinterpreting it, at this point we're gonna have to agree to disagree because this was a fucking asinine conversation. There's not more that can be said.

[dirtyboxer55]

I never said men weren't naturally stronger than women. Again, you're missing my point entirely.
Since you have proven incapable of taking a single thing I've said without misinterpreting it, at this point we're gonna have to agree to disagree because this was a fucking asinine conversation. There's not more that can be said.

you know, i had a reply for every sentence in this, but im just going to ask you 3 more questions.

do you think men are more dominant physically?
do you think men are more dominant socially, 'climbing the ladder', etc.?
if you arent talking about social or physical dominance, what are you talking about then?

[Babs]

you know, i had a reply for every sentence in this, but im just going to ask you 3 more questions.

do you think men are more dominant physically?
do you think men are more dominant socially, 'climbing the ladder', etc.?
if you arent talking about social or physical dominance, what are you talking about then?

Men are naturally larger and have more upper body strength, yes, however women also have strengths men don't, such as giving birth. That requires a lot of strength, obviously.
No, I don't think men or women are inherently more socially dominant than the other.
I was talking about dominance as a whole, physical, social, metal, etc., literally anything you can imagine that has a dominant-submissive dynamic. Men can be dominant and submissive, and they can be abusers and victims, but for some strange reason you argued against that.

[dirtyboxer55]

Men are naturally larger and have more upper body strength, yes, however women also have strengths men don't, such as giving birth. That requires a lot of strength, obviously.
No, I don't think men or women are inherently more socially dominant than the other.
I was talking about dominance as a whole, physical, social, metal, etc., literally anything you can imagine that has a dominant-submissive dynamic. Men can be dominant and submissive, and they can be abusers and victims, but for some strange reason you argued against that.

women are more dominant at giving birth never would have guessed that...
i think an argument can be made that men are more socially dominant, which is why most ceo's and leaders are male.

[Babs]

women are more dominant at giving birth never would have guessed that...
i think an argument can be made that men are more socially dominant, which is why most ceo's and leaders are male.

Oh. My. God.
I'm not comparing men in giving birth, I was just giving an example of a strength that women have, such as lower-body strength. Fuck, man.
I would argue that more CEOs and leaders are men because we live in a male-dominated society, which is not because women are in some way inferior, but because men got themselves in a political advantage. Let's not forget how women couldn't even have bank accounts not a hundred years ago. That shit doesn't go away that easily, and it still affects are society today.
Next thing you know, you'll be arguing that white people are superior because there are more white presidents and white CEOs. Sounds pretty shitty when it's put into those terms, yes?
Everything you've just said is so fucking stupid. You're full of shit, man.

[Miserabilia]

women are more dominant at giving birth never would have guessed that...
i think an argument can be made that men are more socially dominant, which is why most ceo's and leaders are male.

That doesn't even make sense. If you'd go back in time a little, NO women here would be working as a ceo or political leader ANYWHERE because those jobs weren't even allowed for women.
Only relatively recenetly, women had been given voting and political rights, and more jobs were available to women, and women weren't naturaly assumed to stay at home and care for children.
Progress is progress, and every day women have more possibilities for carreer and politics then they did before, and that's something we should be proud of and not use as an argument to show that men are more dominant because that's just not related to this at all.

[dirtyboxer55]

Oh. My. God.
I'm not comparing men in giving birth, I was just giving an example of a strength that women have, such as lower-body strength. Fuck, man.
I would argue that more CEOs and leaders are men because we live in a male-dominated society, which is not because women are in some way inferior, but because men got themselves in a political advantage. Let's not forget how women couldn't even have bank accounts not a hundred years ago. That shit doesn't go away that easily, and it still affects are society today.
Next thing you know, you'll be arguing that white people are superior because there are more white presidents and white CEOs. Sounds pretty shitty when it's put into those terms, yes?
Everything you've just said is so fucking stupid. You're full of shit, man.
why is it a male dominated society?
also my opinion offends you and i find that funny.

That doesn't even make sense. If you'd go back in time a little, NO women here would be working as a ceo or political leader ANYWHERE because those jobs weren't even allowed for women.
Only relatively recenetly, women had been given voting and political rights, and more jobs were available to women, and women weren't naturaly assumed to stay at home and care for children.
Progress is progress, and every day women have more possibilities for carreer and politics then they did before, and that's something we should be proud of and not use as an argument to show that men are more dominant because that's just not related to this at all.
yes it is. men are more dominant (they needed to be), and women are more nurturing (they also needed to be), so thats why those positions were like that for so long, we're each better at different things.

[phuckphace]

lol out of all the things one could aspire to, being a CEO of a major company is probably one of the most useless and wasteful jobs out there. you're basically a figurehead who gets paid bundles of cash to attend investor's meetings and photo-op with the upper management. not sure that's the position I'd want if I were a woman who wanted to make a positive statement about women's contribution to business.

the women who need more attention are the parents who work thankless low-wage jobs out of financial necessity in order to provide for their families. I can sympathize with that far more than I can the careerist ball-busters who want to lord over 10,000 underlings from the office spire of some soulless megacorp. the latter aren't actually upset that there are fewer women in upper management, but only that they aren't one of them.

[Horatio Nelson]

lol out of all the things one could aspire to, being a CEO of a major company is probably one of the most useless and wasteful jobs out there. you're basically a figurehead who gets paid bundles of cash to attend investor's meetings and photo-op with the upper management. not sure that's the position I'd want if I were a woman who wanted to make a positive statement about women's contribution to business.

the women who need more attention are the parents who work thankless low-wage jobs out of financial necessity in order to provide for their families. I can sympathize with that far more than I can the careerist ball-busters who want to lord over 10,000 underlings from the office spire of some soulless megacorp. the latter aren't actually upset that there are fewer women in upper management, but only that they aren't one of them.

This is why you are my favorite ROTW poster. Could not have said it better myself.

[Miserabilia]

yes it is. men are more dominant (they needed to be), and women are more nurturing (they also needed to be), so thats why those positions were like that for so long, we're each better at different things.

That's all fine and dandy, but using the amount of men in political and busenes top jobs is still not justified, since that amount is still changing and actualy shows nothing of the position of men and women throughout humanity in it's entirety.

[Karkat]

lol out of all the things one could aspire to, being a CEO of a major company is probably one of the most useless and wasteful jobs out there. you're basically a figurehead who gets paid bundles of cash to attend investor's meetings and photo-op with the upper management. not sure that's the position I'd want if I were a woman who wanted to make a positive statement about women's contribution to business.

the women who need more attention are the parents who work thankless low-wage jobs out of financial necessity in order to provide for their families. I can sympathize with that far more than I can the careerist ball-busters who want to lord over 10,000 underlings from the office spire of some soulless megacorp. the latter aren't actually upset that there are fewer women in upper management, but only that they aren't one of them.

Precisely. Perfect.

[dirtyboxer55]

lol out of all the things one could aspire to, being a CEO of a major company is probably one of the most useless and wasteful jobs out there. you're basically a figurehead who gets paid bundles of cash to attend investor's meetings and photo-op with the upper management. not sure that's the position I'd want if I were a woman who wanted to make a positive statement about women's contribution to business.

the women who need more attention are the parents who work thankless low-wage jobs out of financial necessity in order to provide for their families. I can sympathize with that far more than I can the careerist ball-busters who want to lord over 10,000 underlings from the office spire of some soulless megacorp. the latter aren't actually upset that there are fewer women in upper management, but only that they aren't one of them.
my point was that its mostly men at the top lording over 10,000 underlings

actualy shows nothing of the position of men and women throughout humanity in it's entirety.
explain how most leaders being men since the very beginning doesnt show anything about the position of men and women

[Miserabilia]

explain how most leaders being men since the very beginning doesnt show anything about the position of men and women

That's not even the argument I replied to and mentioned several times, and I'm not making any claims about the position of any gender over any.
/pointless reply

[dirtyboxer55]

I'm not making any claims about the position of any gender over any.

in summation here are my responses to your posts:

when i said most leaders are and have been male because males are more dominant you said it didnt make sense because those leaders positions were reserved for males a short time ago. i say its always been this way, a lot longer than short time ago because of our nature. then you say using business and political top jobs isnt justified because it says nothing about humanity in its entirety, but in fact when you look through history from 2014 to the early days when we roamed the land as nomads men have always been striving for the top to be the alpha male.

do you have anything youd like to add?

[phuckphace]

my point was that its mostly men at the top lording over 10,000 underlings

and mine was that most of the men who end up in those positions are a waste of oxygen as it is, and aspiring to it reflects rather poorly on the person.

I think a lot of women would actually be happier staying at home with children if they could afford to do so, but many of them feel obligated to start careers even if they don't really need them thanks to propaganda from the college-industrial-complex. college degrees are highly oversold and overvalued, and a lot of people end up going into debt for a degree that they could've got by without.

[Vlerchan]

There's also more white CEOs in America than there is black CEOs.

What ridiculousness can you derive from this?

once upon a time the evil male patriarchy functioned as a system for protection and care of women and as a result instances of rape and domestic violence were much rarer than today.
This is just wrong. All of it. It's first the case that violence against woman is a rather foundational element of patriarchy. It's second the case that the statistics you're referring to (citation needed) can rather easily be explained away in that:

Even today rape goes significantly under-reported (https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates). Even a cursory glance at subject will show you that. I also quoted the "cheery" figures first because in some (first-world) jurisdictions it's estimated that up to 95% (http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/media/without-consent-20061231.pdf) of rapes might go unreported. The reason we're seeing higher rape rates in our less patriarchal setting is because our less patriarchal setting encourages woman to come forward with this stuff - and that's why you've Chief Constable's using words like "reassuring" (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29642455) to describe increases in the reported rape rates of 28%.

I feel I should also add that raping your wife was legal until relatively recently. In Ireland martial rape was okay until 1990. (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/sec0005.html#sec5)
Domestic violence is a fairly modern idea. In Ireland domestic violence only began to be recognised as an actual thing in the 1970s and proper legislation to deal with it comprehensibly was only put in place in 1996.

Beating your wife was pretty much illegal across the US by the 1920s like Ireland it only began to become open to judicial litigation in the 1970s.

Like c'mon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_preventing_and_combating_violence_against_women_and_domestic_viole nce)

all that AND the luxury of not having to slave away in a coal mine for sixteen hours a day, or spend an equal amount of time with their faces near a giant vat of molten metal, etc. etc. a husband who showers you with free money in exchange for meal preparation and child care, women used to have a solid deal, too bad we decided to throw all that out in exchange for MY INDEPENDENCE.
I think just pointing to the sheer number of woman that are opting to work outside the home is enough to demonstrate what a sweet deal that really isn't.

[Babs]

why is it a male dominated society?
also my opinion offends you and i find that funny.


yes it is. men are more dominant (they needed to be), and women are more nurturing (they also needed to be), so thats why those positions were like that for so long, we're each better at different things.

You're full of shit, man. Everything you spew is utter bullshit and the fact that I need to explain this to you is astounding.
You basically just described a male-dominated society, and now I need to explain why it's a male-dominated society.
And no, I'm not offended. Perhaps if someone with credibility or any knowledge on the subject had said the same thing, maybe I would have but I've conversed with you enough to know that you're full of shit.

[Miserabilia]

First of all let me congratulate you on misreading my posts in this way because it's just such terrible fun to correct myself and you :thumbsup: :P



when i said most leaders are and have been male because males are more dominant you said it didnt make sense because those leaders positions were reserved for males a short time ago. i say its always been this way, a lot longer than short time ago because of our nature.


That.. that doesn't make any sense.
You said it had always been this way?
What has always been this way?
They have always been reseverd for males? Because that's simply not true.
THey have always been available to both males and females? That's just not true either.
So eitherway I really don't see what you mean here.
Feel free to explain. :rolleyes:


then you say using business and political top jobs isnt justified because it says nothing about humanity in its entirety, but in fact when you look through history from 2014 to the early days when we roamed the land as nomads men have always been striving for the top to be the alpha male.


You... I don't think you're understanding.
I'm making the exact same point as earlier. I'm not saying that "well men being the best at political jobs doesn't mean anything because women are really good at baking stuff" (I wouldn't say that though, can you imagine? :lol:), I mean the same as earlier.
Only VERY recently have woman here been able to have influence on politics or important positions in jobs.

[dirtyboxer55]

You're full of shit, man. Everything you spew is utter bullshit and the fact that I need to explain this to you is astounding.

its kind of rude to call someone full of shit when all theyve done is politely debate.

You basically just described a male-dominated society, and now I need to explain why it's a male-dominated society.

earth = male dominated society

And no, I'm not offended. Perhaps if someone with credibility or any knowledge on the subject had said the same thing, maybe I would have but I've conversed with you enough to know that you're full of shit.
my credentials are in my signature.



That.. that doesn't make any sense.
You said it had always been this way?
What has always been this way?
They have always been reseverd for males? Because that's simply not true.
THey have always been available to both males and females? That's just not true either.

its always been this way. back when humans were small groups of wanderers we had male (alpha) leaders. i mean i guess you could say leader positions were/are "reserved" for males because men are the ones who try and take them.

Only VERY recently have woman here been able to have influence on politics or important positions in jobs.
right. this does not negate anything ive said or make it wrong in any way.

[gothy]

i started a very interesting debate. . . cool. i was just kind of venting tbh. but I like the way this turned out.

[Karkat]

its kind of rude to call someone full of shit when all theyve done is politely debate.

politely

politely

politely

https://31.media.tumblr.com/fe95f0a29d02c887879a1120476b79ce/tumblr_inline_mfih656K1O1qd04lx.gif

my credentials are in my signature.

I don't even care what consequences there are for saying this, but you have GOT to be one of the most narcissistic and irrational people I've ever met.

Also, when a particular group dominates, it usually means everyone else around was beaten into submission, or at least threatened with the prospect.

If you've read a single history book, you'll know that fightin' the powah usually leads to injury, imprisonment, death, or all of the above.

And as you've so tactfully pointed out, men can be real beefcakes.

[Bleid]

For example, there was a violence against women assembly at school today.
which of course i totally support.

What an unfortunate choice of wording.

[dirtyboxer55]

I don't even care what consequences there are for saying this, but you have GOT to be one of the most narcissistic and irrational people I've ever met.


there is no need to be upset :)

[Babs]

its kind of rude to call someone full of shit when all theyve done is politely debate.

earth = male dominated society

my credentials are in my signature.


its always been this way. back when humans were small groups of wanderers we had male (alpha) leaders. i mean i guess you could say leader positions were/are "reserved" for males because men are the ones who try and take them.

right. this does not negate anything ive said or make it wrong in any way.

I don't care if it's rude, honestly.
Your credentials in your signature, lmao okay. You're the self-proclaimed most intelligent user on vt, so therefor I'm naturally inclined to believe everything you say because you claim to be oh-so intelligent while anonymously debating on the internet, making claims that everyone who has replied has basically torn apart.
Don't mistake narcissism for intelligence.

[bigdaddy127]

You are a Guy, but why hate being a guy, not all guys are jerks, There are those who are normal, nice guys, other guys, It takes at least 20 years for wives to domesticate husbands to be house dogs or sheep. The others who are jerks will die lonely or in jail.

[Miserabilia]

its always been this way. back when humans were small groups of wanderers we had male (alpha) leaders. i mean i guess you could say leader positions were/are "reserved" for males because men are the ones who try and take them.

right. this does not negate anything ive said or make it wrong in any way.


Are... are you... are you even reading my postst at all?
YOU CAN'T USE THE AMOUNT OF WOMEN IN POLITICS AND LEADER POSITIONS RIGHT NOW AS AN ARGUMENT FOR ANY POSITION OF MEN OVER WOMEN. WOMEN WEREN'T ALLOWED POLITICAL POSITIONS.

Hope the caps make the text appealing enough to actualy see the words.

Actualy nevermind , sigh. I feel like this isn't realy to be taken seriously.

What an unfortunate choice of wording.

:lol3:

[dirtyboxer55]

Are... are you... are you even reading my postst at all?
YOU CAN'T USE THE AMOUNT OF WOMEN IN POLITICS AND LEADER POSITIONS RIGHT NOW AS AN ARGUMENT FOR ANY POSITION OF MEN OVER WOMEN. WOMEN WEREN'T ALLOWED POLITICAL POSITIONS.

the leaders have always been men since the start. men are more dominant. if women were more dominant it would have been the other way around.

[Kahn]

Are... are you... are you even reading my postst at all?
YOU CAN'T USE THE AMOUNT OF WOMEN IN POLITICS AND LEADER POSITIONS RIGHT NOW AS AN ARGUMENT FOR ANY POSITION OF MEN OVER WOMEN. WOMEN WEREN'T ALLOWED POLITICAL POSITIONS.


This is just false.

Hatshepsut
Eleanor of Aquitaine
Maria Theresa of Austria
Empress Wu Zetian
Elizabeth I of England
Queen Victoria
Etc.

All of these women were powerful, revered rulers or political/religious leaders. The circumstances of our roles as people today are vastly different when compared to what they were for individuals centuries ago.

[Miserabilia]

This is just false.

Hatshepsut
Eleanor of Aquitaine
Maria Theresa of Austria
Empress Wu Zetian
Elizabeth I of England
Queen Victoria
Etc.

All of these women were powerful, revered rulers or political/religious leaders. The circumstances of our roles as people today are vastly different when compared to what they were for individuals centuries ago.


Misunderstanding..

I'm not saying women were never able to be leaders of busense or political.
I'm saying women weren't allowed to even vote here 100 years ago.

So looking at current women in politics isn't really fair, since it's only a small timespan where they could.

Obviosuly there have been many powerful leading women throughout history, but it's not a good argument to look at how many women in the usa for example, are currently in politics.

[dirtyboxer55]

This is just false.

Hatshepsut
Eleanor of Aquitaine
Maria Theresa of Austria
Empress Wu Zetian
Elizabeth I of England
Queen Victoria
Etc.

All of these women were powerful, revered rulers or political/religious leaders. The circumstances of our roles as people today are vastly different when compared to what they were for individuals centuries ago.
while what you said is true the amount of female leaders is still infinitesimally small compared to men.

Misunderstanding..

I'm not saying women were never able to be leaders of busense or political.
I'm saying women weren't allowed to even vote here 100 years ago.

So looking at current women in politics isn't really fair, since it's only a small timespan where they could.

Obviosuly there have been many powerful leading women throughout history, but it's not a good argument to look at how many women in the usa for example, are currently in politics.
so then dont look at how many women are in politics, look at leaders in history and the ratio of men to women

[Kahn]

while what you said is true the amount of female leaders is still infinitesimally small compared to men.

You're correct. I was clarifying for Cheese that there were women of prominence throughout history, women of wealth and affluence, just as there were men of the same status. The men vastly outnumbered the women in those sorts of roles, but society demanded a different way of life and different sets of skills from men and women at the time, due to their circumstances for survival.

In hindsight, can we sit here and say that it was egregious of the men of the Era to exclude women from a number of societal functions they competently fill today? There may be some merit in that. But we must understand that we can hardly compare the situation with which a 20 year old female undergraduate is faced with today, to the situation a 20 year old feudal village wench was faced with in her day.

[SethfromMI]

Okay, so i don't know where to put this. so i chose here because im kind of just gonna rant.

anyways, i hate being a guy.

Personally i know many great guys. but i seem to feel bad for being male.

For example, there was a violence against women assembly at school today.
which of course i totally support.
But i also take from it what im sure many dont.

Men are the abusers (always) and females are the victims (always).

there is no situation where the female is the abuser.

I feel just as strongly that something needs to be done to protect men from abusers (both male and female). but in our society, standing up for men is politically inncorrect and therefore puts you in the category of an opressor of women. so basically, there is no place to discuss the rape and violence against men.

for example, if a girlfriend is attacking her boyfriend, it is seen as socially acceptable and ignored.

"the man probably deserves it" "he probably cheated on her" "you go girll"

i witnessed this myself.

i dont know where im going with this.

but i gotta go now. so whatever you take from this, please share.

thank you.

I totally see what you are saying. it needs to go both ways. there is just more of a focus because men do more abusing (as a whole) and women are considered more vulnerable. right or wrong it is the way it is

[fairmaiden]

image (https://31.media.tumblr.com/fe95f0a29d02c887879a1120476b79ce/tumblr_inline_mfih656K1O1qd04lx.gif)



I don't even care what consequences there are for saying this, but you have GOT to be one of the most narcissistic and irrational people I've ever met.

Also, when a particular group dominates, it usually means everyone else around was beaten into submission, or at least threatened with the prospect.

If you've read a single history book, you'll know that fightin' the powah usually leads to injury, imprisonment, death, or all of the above.

And as you've so tactfully pointed out, men can be real beefcakes.
Don't worry, Dirtyboxer55 has a habit of spewing absolute ridiculous things. He's done it on numerous amounts of other threads. He's deluded and needs help.
--

As for the threadstarter, I can see where you're coming from. Abuse is abuse, no matter who is responsible.

[Vlerchan]

Right. Let's take a proper look at this mess.

lol women arent victimized because of sexism, theyre victimized because men are more physically dominant
Juxtapose's point is that a female victim is seen as worse off than the equivalent male victim as a result of sexism and how society views woman.

You haven't once refuted this in any of your posts.

i feel like if someone abuses/rapes a girl it would be because she cant defend herself (easy target) as opposed to "damn women whys she not doing my laundry and making me a sandwich"
Even though this is irrelevant to Juxtapose's point I'll add that men thinking it would be possible to rape someone does not get into the motivations for men raping someone.

I'd start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence) if you want to get to grips with the motivations.

you said women are victims cause sexism, not that theyre seen as victims so thats what i responded to, maybe you didnt mean it like that.
Juxtapose didn't.

also men treating women like bambi isnt them trying to be sexist, its a natural instinct in men to protect potential mates.
It's not about being protective. It's about viewing the woman as the greater victim just because she's a woman.

men and womens brains are fundamentally different.
Once you start making claims like this is when I start needing evidence to even begin taking you seriously.

men have more testosterone, which makes us more prone to violence, and have higher sex drive.
It makes us more prone to violence in certain conditions.

For example: regardless of their gender, the most violent prisoners have higher levels of testosterone than their less violent peers. Yet scientists hypothesize that this violence is just one manifestation of the much more biologically and reproductively salient goal of dominance.

"It has been suggested that the antisocial behaviors related to high testosterone are a function of the manner by which dominance is maintained in these groups," says Robert Josephs of the University of Texas at Austin. In other words, if researchers were to study other groups of folks, say the rich and famous, they might discover that testosterone is connected not to violence, but to who drives the biggest SUV or has the nicest lawn. As Josephs put it: "Perhaps slipping a shiv into your neighbor's back might play in the penitentiary, but it probably won't earn you any status points in Grosse Pointe."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/

In other words higher levels of testosterone in a person leads to a higher drive to be the dominant actor in a group.

All sorts of environmental pressures then mould this.

---

You're correct about the libido bit. But then who cares?

men are also less emotional, as they have smaller frontal and temporal lobes
In one study, two groups of volunteers — half men, half women — had their physiology measured with skin conductance electrodes while being shown videos with varying emotional content. The men exhibited stronger emotional reactions than women to all categories of video, and responded twice as strongly to content described as “heart-warming” than did their female counterparts. At the same time, the men in this study reported feeling less emotion than they actually did (to the extent that electrodes can quantify emotion). In a separate survey by the same researchers, 67 percent of men said that they were more emotional than they appeared.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/30575-are-women-more-emotional-than-men-5-studies-examining-common-gender-stereotypes

I should add that this is toxic masculinity in action in case you were wondering.

---

Men have larger temporal and frontal lobes which would make them more analytical if our current understanding of the brain is correct. Woman do tend to have more nerve cells (https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/wome.html) though which I'd imagine helps to balance that out.

and you may view men trying to protect women as sexist, but its a gene passed down to them by their ancestors.
It's not about being protective. It's about viewing the woman as the greater victim just because she's a woman.

if they did not have this gene they would not be here. no drive to protect potential mates = no offspring.
Not because it's relevant but if you want to go ahead and demonstrate that this urge just exists in men do feel free to.

physically men are dominant due to testosterone.
No. Men strive to be dominant because of testosterone. This does not make them inherently dominant though.

women are dominant in understanding body language due to their larger temporal and frontal lobes.
Wrong.

its expected men to be masculine because of the traits ive listed above, as well as women to be feminine because of their traits.
Nope.

everything i said is backed by science.
I think I've demonstrated rather conclusively it isn't.

let me guess, you think damsel in distress movies are sexist as well?
I tend to critique films on a film-by-film basis. Lots of them are though.

note how i said physical before i said dominant like every time.
note how Juxtapose wants to discuss social dominance and you continuously strawman her position every time.

because of this i agree in both women and men can be dominant in general. but all men at the back of their mind will always be striving to be the dominant 'alpha male' of their group, which results in overall men being more dominant.
Finally you get. Juxtapose was discussing social dominance the whole time.

Of course now we're pretending that biology acts independent of enviormental factors here. This is incorrect.

citation needed
I found this post incredibly ironic. Regardless.

Research has shown that suppressing or avoiding your emotions in fact can make them stronger. For example, if you are sad because a family member passed away but want to avoid feeling the sadness, you may watch happy movies, try to keep your day as normal as possible and may even talk to friends as if nothing happened. However, the sadness is still present in your mind and a small hiccup in the day may cause you to seemingly overreact to the situation. Even if the object of your emotion is different, this is your body’s way of releasing the pent up emotions. Just as emotion suppression is your body’s way of -protecting you during a trauma, emotion release in a non-traumatic situation is your body’s way of protecting itself from further damage.

Effects of consistent emotion suppression include increased physical stress on your body, including high blood pressure, increased incidence of diabetes and heart disease. In addition, people who engage in emotion suppression regularly rare more likely to experience stiff joints, bone weakness and more illnesses due to lowered immunity.

Research has also shown a connection between avoiding emotions and poor memory as well as more misunderstandings in conversations with others. This is because people who regularly suppress emotion are often less aware of the signals they are sending to others and also less aware of the social cues present in daily conversation. In addition, when one or both partners engage in regular emotion suppression, communication skills often decline resulting in unhealthy relationship patterns and decreased satisfaction in the marriage.

Finally, men and women who avoid emotions, especially negative ones, are more likely to experience high anxiety and depression in their lifetime.

http://www.mysahana.org/2011/05/emotion-suppression-effects-on-mental-and-physical-health/

I'm not bolding because it's all relevant.

I should add that suppressed anger (an emotion) tends to be a root cause to a lot of abusive relationships.

explain specifically what i said that is proven wrong by this. oh wait, you cant.
Karkat's point was in opposition you strawmanning Juxtapose as just referring to physical dominance as the most important thing for several posts in a row.

---

Skipping stuff I'm just not bothered to deal with a second time.

---

also how is my argument 'bias'?
It places way too much emphasis on biological factors and not nearly enough on sociological factors.

---

I'm also skipping over the back-and-forth shit-talk because I'm just not bothered there either.

---

i think an argument can be made that men are more socially dominant, which is why most ceo's and leaders are male.
I think there's a bias in the system that has historically resulted in this occurring.

This bias is only starting to be dealt with the last 40 years.

I would ask later:

There's also more white CEOs in America than there is black CEOs.

What ridiculousness can you derive from this?

Because it's the same argument.

There's a lot more to societal structuring that biology. I might accept your argument if we were discussing early agricultural societies (or similar) in which division and specialisation of labour could only possibly occur with respect to physical strength. But we're not: we're discussing something infinitely more complex. Your argument falls down once you realise that.

This is the argument Karkat was trying to make.

---

I'm also going to skip over people just repeating themselves.

---

[Soundtrack] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDTSUwIZdMk)